The URL can be used to link to this page

MEETING PACKET SEPTEMBER 2014 A CITY OF SALEM MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF HEALTH IV 120 WAsHINGTON STREET,4 FLOOR pPublicHealth romote.Protect. TEL. (978) 741-1800 R-�X(978) 745-0343 KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL lramdin(a,salcin.com L\RRY RAD2ID.TN,RS/RL?1:fS,CI K),(;)-1"S MAYOR IIl?,\.i;r I t1GISNT NOTICE OF MEETING Revised You are hereby notified that the Salem Board of Health will hold its regularly scheduled meeting Tuesday September 9, 2014 at 7.00 PM City Hall Annex 120 Washington St.3.d Floor Room 312 MEETING AGENDA 1. Call to order 2. Approval of Minutes 3. Chairperson Communications 4. Public Health Announcements/Reports/Updates a. Health Agent b. PHN Report c. Administrative d. Council Liaison 5. Hearing request from The Hawthorne Hotel—smoking in a workplace violation 6. Discussion and public Comment on Board of Health Regulation 5A:Backyard Poultry Keeping the Board of Health will be accepting public comment on its proposed regulation that will address public health concerns about backyard poultry keeping. 7. Miscellaneous 8. Adjournment L y a /L--- Health Agent cc: Mayor Kimberley Driscoll, Board of Health, City Councilors • Next regularly scheduled meeting is October 14, 2014 at 7pm at City Hall Annex, 120 Washington Street Room 312. Know your rights under the open meeting law MGL chapter 3" ss 18-25 and City Ordinance section 2-2028 through 2-2033 r CITY OF SALEM BOARD OF HEALTH MEETING MINUTES July 8, 2014 MEMBERS PRESENT: Dr. Barbara Poremba, Chair, Dr. Shama Alam Dr. Danielle Ledoux, Paul Kirby, & Gayle Sullivan OTHERS PRESENT: David Greenbaum Sr. Sanitarian, Council Liaison Beth Gerard, Suzanne Doty, Public Health Nurse & Councilors at Large Thomas Furey and William Legault. MEMBERS EXCUSED: None TOPIC DISCUSSION/ACTION 1. Call to Order 7:00pm 2. Minutes of Last Meeting Dr. Alam motioned to approve minutes. Paul Kirby 2nd. Approved (June 10, 2014) unanimously 3. Chairperson Announcements None 4. Monthly Reports-Updates A. B. Health Agent Approved. Copy available at the BOH. Report A department employee is out on workmen's compensation. Health Agent is out on personal leave the office will be short staffed (only 3 employees) until they return to work. B. Public Health Approved. Copy available at the BOH. Nurse's Report Farmers Market blood pressure attendance is going well. The recreation camps are ready for the season. C. Administrative Approved. Copy available at the BOH. Report D. City Council Chicken ordinance update—There will be a joint public hearing Liaison Updates with city council and the planning board in Sept. Larry Ramdin drafted a regulation that will be reviewed by the Board. Some components of the draft regulation are no more than 6 chickens, no rosters, no slaughtering, no selling of eggs &property line boundaries for placement of coops. Council Liaison Gerard found another candidate for the Board due to Gayle Sullivan sending in her resignation letter to the Mayor. Councilor Segal still hasn't held a health and safety committee meeting so no discussion on the reduction of the board as of yet. Councilor Legault addressed the Board stating, it is Councilor Segal's decision to have or not to have a meeting. Dr. Alam will contact Councilor Segal to discuss this matter. The administration and finance committee will discuss the possibility of a$10,000 grant for purchasing personal ashtrays on July 15, 2014 5. New Business A. Tobacco 21 - Public Comments Stanly Cahill Ph.D. , Executive Vice President of SSU came to the hearing representing the President of Salem State University. A letter was sent to the Board of Health stating, he strongly supports this change to the Salem Board of Health regulation. Letter will be available at the office. Councilor at Large Tom Furey is in favor of the change. Councilor Furey has been on the school committee as well as being a city councilor for several years. He helped start the no smoking in Elderly housing. He commended The Board for taking action on this matter as they have done in the past with the smoking ban in restaurants. DJ Wilson— Gave the Board a handout of what cities and towns (26) have increased the purchasing age 21 for cigarettes, cigars and nicotine delivery products(handout available in the office). Studies have shown the benefits of increasing the age to purchase. The sooner someone starts smoking the harder it is too quit. NYC has been in effect for a month&enforcement will start in August. Atty. Wilson also presented a cigar policy change for packaging price change. The policy change to the regulation would put a point price on packages of 4 cigars that have recently flooded the market and it will also capture all cigar multipacks. Mike Allen owner of Red Lion Smoke Shop—Is not in favor of this change stating we are allowed to vote & fight for our country at age 18. If Salem is the only city on the north shore that changes the age restriction, people will go to another community to buy cigarettes. Mr. Allen has been in this business for 40 years. By changing this regulation, he believes that it will cut 3%of his sales. Customers who come in for tobacco products are also buying other items in the store. If the state decided to change the law it would be a different story. He doesn't believe this will minimize tobacco use. He also wants to let the Board know he only received this letter about the public hearing today. He asked the Board to think about this change and ask yourselves will this change accomplish what you want to accomplish. He believes this change will shift business to other cities. Derek Arnold &PC owner of The Witch Dr. —Owners' agree with Mr. Allen. They also are upset they only received the letter about the public hearing the same day of the hearing. Sheldon Stone owner of The Vapor Outlet - Agrees with Red Lion as well. Does not understand what the purpose of this change is. If it was statewide it would be more acceptable. He sells electric cigarettes which have no tobacco in the product. People that come into his store are looking for an alternative to stop smoking cigarettes. The carcinogens in e-cigarettes are less than tobacco products. The nicotine in his products range from 0 to 24 milliliters of nicotine. He said that Time magazine had an article on e- cigarettes stating it is the future of smoking. Janet Greene— Salem Resident &Nurse—. She is in agreement with the health issues but her concern is taking away a right of our young veterans. John Kourtelidis owner of Shell Station—He stated that he made several phone calls to establishments because of the lateness in this letter. He doesn't see the benefit of restricting the age group. There are many choices you can make when your 18 this should be one of them. If it was statewide there would be no problem. This will affect his business because he owns a gas station. He made the argument; why make 2 stops for gas and cigarettes when you can make one in the next town. He thinks that the Board is choosing to tell people they do not have a choice. He explained that his expenses will go up, payroll will go up, but his sales will plummet. He asked the Board if they would consider having another hearing on this and sending out notification in a timely manner. Esteban Amentel owner of My Convenience Store—was unable to address the Board because he does not speak English very well. Council Liaison Beth Gerard read an email from Robert Kennedy of 10 Bentley St - Is not in favor of the regulation change. The email will be forwarded to The Clerk of the Board and will be available in the office. Bill Legault—Informed the Board that other boards send out there notification the week before their meetings and they all receive the same complaints about not having enough notice of a hearing. He suggested to the Board that they send out another notice and have another hearing on this matter. Councilor Furey— spoke about the areas that are now smoke free, SSU campus, Court houses, and smoking in senior housing is heading in that direction. Options are given to each city and town to change their local regulations. This type of change is not going to happen at the state level so it needs to happen on a local level to send a clear message. John Kourtelidis—This change is not affecting the person next to them in a restaurant, this is affecting their business. This country sees you as an adult at 18 we're not saving a city by implementing this. Mr. Kourtelidis is asking for an equal playing ground. There needs to be a more organized way to implement this change such as a coalition of health boards that are in agreement with this change. Public comment continuation discussion. On Thursday August 7, 2014 at 7pm the public comment will be continued and voted on. Letter will be sent to the tobacco permit holders again along with the information Atty. Wilson handed out to the Board. 7. MEETING ADJOURNED: 9:05pm Respectfully submitted, Heather Lyons-Paul Clerk of the Board Next Board of Health hearing is August 7, 2014 at 7pm At City Hall Annex, 120 Washington Street, Room 313 Salem. I N Health Agent report July/August 2014 Announcements • Electronic Death Registration System implementation date was rescheduled from August 1,to September 1. We have arranged with City Hall systems to create an electronic payment portal for Burial permits. The system is up and running, unfortunately there are glitches with the implementation of the electronic death registration system • The City has implemented a new online complaint system seeclickfix/commonwealth connect. It allows for individuals to submit complaints online and allows for tracking. • The City Council is considering zoning by law changes to allow for backyard chicken keeping Community Outreach • Larry Ramdin attended a meeting with the SSU Enterprise Center to discuss the feasibility of opening a community kitchen. The project is in the discussion phase and we will continue to support the project and offer guidance so that public health requirements are addressed in the development phase • Larry Ramdin met with the representatives of SSU administration to address concerns about student activities and off campus housing Public Health Highlights • The Health Department is dealing with several issues related to trash complaints Meetings and Trainings • Larry Ramdin,Health Agent met with representatives, of the EPA, City Engineer and DPS Director to discuss disposal of Fats oils and Grease from commercial establishments in the city • David Greenbaum attended a meeting with City Engineer, DPS Director and Consultant engineers to discuss fats oils and grease in city sewers • Inspections Item Monthly Total YTD 2013 Total Certificate of Fitness 82 357 577 Inspection Certificate of Fitness 2 16 29 reinspection Food Inspection 60 238 377 Food Re-inspections 0 104 227 Retail Food 0 22 55 Inspections Retail Food 0 7 27 reinspection General Nuisance 3 12 9 Inspections Food— 0 1 2 Administrative Hearings Housing Inspections 26 149 233 Housing re- 4 32 40 inspections Rodent Complaints 8 16 39 Court Hearings 0 2 10 Trash Inspections 30 102 146 J Orders served by 0 2 2 Constable Tanning Inspections 0 1 1 Body Art 0 1 1 Swimming pools 0 23 30 Bathing Beach 73 100 102 Inspection/testing Lead Determination 0 1 4 Septic Abandonment 0 1 0 Septic System Plan 1 1 1 Review Soil Evaluation 0 0 1 Percolation tests 0 0 1 Total 289 1187 1914 • • Health Agent report September 2014 Announcements • The Department will be applying for 3 FDA grants that will assist in complying with the requirements of the voluntary program standards and provide support for achieving compliance with the standards • The Department has received its allotment of influenza vaccine and clinics are scheduled. We will continue to assist other local Board's of Health at their clinics. • We have planned an emergency dispensing site drill for November 15, to test our capabilities in responding to an emergency event. Community Outreach • The regional shared services project receive d a grant of$1250. 00 from the Massachusetts Department of Health. The grant will fund a sharps awareness project. Postcards will be printed describing how sharps should be properly disposed of and local collection sites. • Household hazardous waste day was held on September 27 at The Salem High School, • from 8:00 am to noon. All members of staff participated. Public Health Highlights • The presence of Ebola in the US is of concern and there have been several updates and conference calls. The current guidance is per CDC. • We were contacted by the school dept. about a suspect case of Enterovirus (EV- D68) and worked with them to develop response/ education activities activities. The case was not confirmed. • Improper placement, early placement and other issues related to trash is an issue at this time. • The last testing for arbovirus will be this week. The tests do not reveal any positive mosquito pools in Salem to date. The cooler temperatures will significantly reduce mosquito activity. Meetings and Trainings • David Greenbaum and Elizabeth Gagakis attended the 3 day FDA training on conducting food borne illness investigations. • David Greenbaum attended the North Shore REACT meeting to discuss current issues affecting seniors in our community. i • David Greenbaum attended the Salem REACT meeting to discuss issues affecting seniors and discuss case follow-up. • Delilah Castro began the 5 day MA Public Health Inspector Training ("HIT) food inspector course. She will complete the course in early October • Larry Ramdin presented at the 52nd Yankee Conference on Environmental Health on" Developing Food Safety Training for Volunteer and other groups." • Larry Ramdin instructed 3 modules of the MA PHIT Food Inspector training Inspections Item Monthly Total YTD 2013 Total Certificate of Fitness 52 409 577 • Inspection Certificate of Fitness 0 16 29 reinspection Food Inspection 30 268 377 Food Re-inspections 6 110 227 Retail Food 0 22 55 Inspections Retail Food 0 7 27 reinspection General Nuisance 0 12 9 Inspections Food— 0 1 2 Administrative • Hearings Housing Inspections 19 168 233 Housing re- 2 34 40 inspections Rodent Complaints 1 17 39 Court Hearings 0 2 10 Trash Inspections 20 122 146 Orders served by 0 2 2 Constable Tanning Inspections 0 1 1 Body Art 0 1 1 Swimming pools 0 23 30 Bathing Beach 0 100 102 Inspection/testing Lead Determination 0 1 4 Septic Abandonment 0 1 0 Septic System Plan 0 1 1 Review Soil Evaluation 1 1 1 Percolation tests 1 1 1 Total 132 1319 1914 • • Suzanne Doty RN, BSN Salem Board of Health Public Health Nurse Public Health Nurse Report Reporting on July9`h 2014 to Sept 2"d 2014 Disease Prevention • Investigated reportable diseases and reported case information to MDPH. • In contact with North Shore Pulmonary Clinic and MGH pulmonary clinic on current active tuberculosis cases. • In contact with NSMC Infection Control department for prevention of disease within the hospital. • Conducted joint visit for a suspected hoarding case with Senior Sanitarian, David Greenbaum. The North Shore Center for Hoarding and Cluttering task force was consulted and is working closely with this case who is currently attending peer meetings. Will continue to follow up with this case in September. • On August 25`h,obtained 2 vials(20 doses)of tuberculin solution under the conditions instructed by MDPH that it is only used for the testing of close contacts of persons with active tuberculosis or any new arrival immigrants/refugees who need testing by the public health nurse. Health Promotion • Continuing to hold blood pressure clinics and provide public health information at the Salem Farmers Market on a weekly basis. • Updated the Salem Board of Health Facebook and Twitter pages with links and information on mosquito borne illnesses and prevention. • Participated in the Salem Seniors Health Fair on August 61h to provide and promote the "Grab and Go"Emergency preparedness kits for elders. • Participated on North Shore Community Health Inc.Health Fair on August 16'h and provided information in Spanish and English on nutrition and activity,hypertension and stroke prevention as well as women's health booklets and opioid and addiction prevention, awareness and treatment information. • Conducted camp inspections for the Schooner Fame camp and the Lynch Van Otterloo YMCA Theatre camp, ensured that all SORI and CORI checks were completed for all persons employed or volunteering at the camps, that all health histories,physicals and immunization records were complete for all employees/volunteers and all children attending the camps,that all plans and policies including the health and contingency • policies meet state regulations, and that all the infirmaries, first aid kits and medical logs and injury reports meet state regulations. • Submitted recreational camp reporting form to the Massachusetts Department of Public Health including required information on the 49 camps held in Salem. • During the week of August 181h, completed inventory of the entire PHN office and Emergency Dispensing Site trailer located at Salem High School. Supplies have been ordered and kits prepared for the upcoming flu season as well as larger kits for emergency preparedness. Meetings/Trainings • Attended the Salem REACT meeting on July 17`h at the Salem police department to discuss current cases of elders at risk in the community. • Attended with North Shore Cape Ann emergency preparedness coalition meeting on July 23rd for information on the Massachusetts Responds status of volunteers as well as an assessment of the Peabody emergency dispensing site table top drill. • Attended the Massachusetts Asthma Action Partnership Summer Summit where we discussed the new Strategic Asthma Prevention plan, including reduction of triggers, family education and ideas on how to better coordinate care between schools and primary care physicians. • Attended the Hoarding Task Force Re-launch to learn about new online modules and resources for hoarders. • Attended Flu Reimbursement training to learn how to properly obtain and submit information for reimbursement of flu vaccine doses given this year. 0 Attended a Rabies seminar on Aug... I k� T...by Dr. t-atherine Brown, a State rublIC Health Veterinarian in the Epidemiology Program at the Department of Public Health. This talk included general information about rabies as well as discussed the procedure by which we submit specimens as well as when one should be concerned about contact and when funding is necessary by the LBOH. • - Attended the Massachusetts Immunization Information System computer training on August 22"d. The MIIS is a statewide web-based immunization registry for all individuals' immunization records to be kept in one database. Primary care physicians, hospitals, nursing facilities and health departments can enter information on the MIIS for improved record keeping and to avoid duplicate dosing. • August 28`h, met with the School Faculty Director Paul L'Heureux for a complete walk through on the Emergency Dispensing Site at Salem High School. Monthly Report of Communicable Diseases July and August 2014 Disease #Of Cases New Carry Over Discharged Running total Total for 2013 Reported for 2014 Tuberculosis 3 0 3 0 4 2 • (Active) • • Submitted recreational camp reporting form to the Massachusetts Department of Public Health including required information on the 49 camps held in Salem. • During the week of August 181h, completed inventory of the entire PHN office and Emergency Dispensing Site trailer located at Salem High School. Supplies have been ordered and kits prepared for the upcoming flu season as well as larger kits for emergency preparedness. Meetings/Trainings • Attended the Salem REACT meeting on July 17`l'at the Salem police department to discuss current cases of elders at risk in the community. • Attended with North Shore Cape Ann emergency preparedness coalition meeting on July 23rd for information on the Massachusetts Responds status of volunteers as well as an assessment of the Peabody emergency dispensing site table top drill. • Attended the Massachusetts Asthma Action Partnership Summer Summit where we discussed the new Strategic Asthma.Prevention plan,including reduction of triggers, family education and ideas on how to better coordinate care between schools and primary care physicians. • Attended the Hoarding Task Force Re-launch to learn about new online modules and resources for hoarders. • Attended Flu Reimbursement training to learn how to properly obtain and submit • information for reimbursement of flu vaccine doses given this year. • Atten&d a Rabies serni=on August t4th given byt),eatiexine Brown,a State Public Health Veterinarian in the Epidemiology Program at the Department of Public Health. This talk included general information about rabies as well as discussed the procedure by which we submit specimens as well as when one should be concerned about contact and when funding is necessary by the LBOH. • Attended the Massachusetts Immunization Information System computer training on August 22°d. The MIIS is a statewide web-based immunization registry for all individuals' immunization records to be kept in one database. Primary care physicians, hospitals,nursing facilities and health departments can enter information on the MIIS for improved record keeping and to avoid duplicate dosing. • August 28`h, met with the School Faculty Director Paul L'Heureux for a complete walk through on the Emergency Dispensing Site at Salem High School. Monthly(tort of Communicable Diseases July and August 2014 Disease #Of Cases New Carry Over Discharged Running total Total for 2013 Reported for 2014 Tuberculosis 3 0 3 0 4 2 (Active) • Latent 1 1 0 1 31 44 Tuberculosis* Malaria 0 0 0 0 1 0 - Calicivirus/No 0 0 0 0 1 0 rovirus Group B 0 0 0 0 4 2 Streptococcus Meningitis 0 0 0 0 2 0 Hepatitis C* 3 3 0 3 14 37 Influenza* 0 0 0 0 21 62 Lyme 1 1 0 1 1 8 Disease* Campylobacte 0 0 0 0 2 15 riosis Giardiasis 0 0 0 0 0 2 Shigellosis 2 2 0 2 2 2 Group A 1 1 0 1 1 1 Streptococcus Streptococcus 0 0 0 0 0 1 Pneuomoniae West i e Chikungunya 1 1 1 1 0 Salmonellosis 1 1 0 1 2 3 Legionellosis 0 0 0 0 0 1 Vibrio 0 0 0 0 0 1 Varicella* 1 1 0 1 1 0 Haemophilus 0 0 0 0 0 1 Influenzae Enterovirus 0 0 0 0 0 1 Pertussis 0 0 0 0 1 2 Hansen's 0 0 0 0 0 1 Disease Total 14 11 3 11 91 187 *Notifications only, LBOH not required to follow up or investigate per DPH. Summary of Current Communicable Diseases TB: - Case#1: Case continuing with DOT visits daily, compliant and feeling well. Case#2: Case continues to be seen for DOT once per week,using daily medication box, very compliant and feeling well. Case#3: Case moved to Salem in early February and has been on DOT visits since November. Daily DOT visits began in Salem upon notification of arrival on Monday February 3`d. Patients DOT appointments are 3 times weekly. Continues to be compliant with all medications, using daily medication box properly and is attending all appointments. 1 Case of probable LTBI reported in February, sputum culture is negative for Tuberculosis. The patient is continuing to be follow by the NSMC pulmonologists. Shigellosis: Case#1: A certified letter was mailed to this case after I was able to get in contact with their father. The father was able to tell me that the case was traveling out of the country and was not currently employed. After several weeks of not being able to get in contact with them personally, this case has been lost to follow up. Case#20 This case was non-English speaking and I was able to obtain information from their daughter and physician's office who confirmed that this patient became ill while they were out of the country. After educating the family and patient on proper precautions there was no further investigation necessary and the case has been closed. Salmonella: Case#1: A complete 7 day food history was obtained from this case as requested by MDPH due to the possibility of a link with another case. There were no constancies between cases but this case has fully recovered and feeling well.No close contacts had symptoms, the case is now closed. Chikungunya: Case#1: This case became ill while out of the country. They became symptomatic within the first week and their symptoms were treated in that country for the next few weeks. Since returning to the United States, they are currently being followed by their primary care physician to continue to manage muscle aches and fatigue. Group A Streptococcus: Case#1: This case was hospitalized with sepsis, the source was considered to possibly be from a UTI or due to chronic lower extremity cellulitis and open sores. She was treated with antibiotics and her condition improved. There have been no other reports of Group A Streptococcus or Varicella reported at the hospital or previous nursing facility where this case was admitted. No further follow up required by LBOH and this case is now closed. f • Summary of Current Communicable Diseases TB: Case#1:Case continuing with DOT visits daily, compliant and feeling well. Case#2:Case continues to be seen for DOT once per week,using daily medication box,very compliant and feeling well. Case#3: Case moved to Salem in early February and has been on DOT visits since November. Daily DOT visits began in Salem upon notification of arrival on Monday February P. Patients DOT appointments are 3 times weekly. Continues to be compliant with all medications,using daily medication box properly and is attending all appointments. 1 Case of probable LTBI reported in February, sputum culture is negative for Tuberculosis. The patient is continuing to be follow by the NSMC pulmonologists. Shigellosis: Case#1:A certified letter was mailed to this case after I was able to get in contact with their father.The father was able to tell me that the case was traveling out of the country and was not currently employed. After several weeks of not being able to get in contact with them personally, this case has been lost to follow up. • Case#2:This case was non-English sneaking and I was able to obtain information from their daughter and physician's office who confirmed that this patient became ill while they were out of the country. After educating the family and patient on proper precautions there was no further investigation necessary and the case has been closed. Salmonella: Case#1: A complete 7 day food history was obtained from this case as requested by MDPH due to the possibility of a link with another case. There were no constancies between cases but this case has fully recovered and feeling well.No close contacts had symptoms, the case is now closed. Chikungunya: Case#1:This case became.ill while out of the country. They became symptomatic within the first week and their symptoms were treated in that country for the next few weeks. Since returning to the United States,they are currently being followed by their primary care physician to continue to manage muscle aches and fatigue. Group A Streptococcus: Case#1:This case was hospitalized with sepsis, the source was considered to possibly be from a UTI or due to chronic lower extremity cellulitis and open sores. She was treated with antibiotics and her • condition improved. There have been no other reports of Group A Streptococcus or Varicella reported at the hospital or previous nursing facility where this case was admitted. No further follow up required by LBOH and this case is now closed. i Health Dept. Clerical Report FY 2 Burial Permits permits Plan Reviews Certificate of Copies/ Fines Revenue Permit Fees $25 Fitness $50 July-14 $450.00 $815.00 $850.00 $2,115.00 Food Service Est. <25 seats $140 August $900.00 $2,415.00 $1,950.00 $5,265.00 25-99 seats $28o >99 seats $420 September $0.00 Retail Food <i000sq' $7o October $0.00 1000-10,000 $28o >1o,000 $420 November $0.00 Temp.Food 1-3 days s3oo December $0.00 4-7 days s600 >7 days $ January-15 Example of>7 day temp food permit: $0.00 14(da s)divided bY 7=2 x s600=$1200 February $0.00 Frozen Desserts $25 March $0.00 Mobile Food $210 April $0.00 Plan Reviews New $180 May $0.00 'Remodel s90 June Catering $25Pereventl$200 $0.00 catering kitchen Body Art Est. $315 Total $1,350.00 $3,230.00 $0.00 $2,800.00 $0.00' 1 $7,380.00 Body Art Practitioner 135 Review Plans $180 Fiscal Year Budget 2014 Suntan Est. $140 Rec.Day Camp $10 Salary Startina Ending Expenses Ext.Paint Removal s35 Full Time $341,229.00 $291,015.11 Starting Ending Transport Off.Subst. slo5 Part Time $15,997.00 $15,203.25 $17,050.00 $10,468.01 Tobacco Vendors $135 Overtime $2,000.00 $1,054.59 Swimming Pools Seasonal $140 Balance $359,226.00 $307,272.95 Health Clinic Revolving Account 'Annual$210 Nonprofit$40 $11,599.77 Title V Review s18o Well Application s18o Disposal works s2251.i8o TINTI, QUINN, GROVER & FREY, P.C. 27 CONGRESS STREET,SUITE 414 WILLIAM J.TINTI SALEM,MASSACHUSETTS 01970 tinti@tintilaw.com WILLIAM B.ARDIFF(1965-1995) WILLIAM F.QUINN TELEPHONE MARCIA MULFORD CINI WilliamFQuinn@aol.com (978)745-8065 • (978)744-2948 OF COUNSEL SCOTT M.GROVER TELECOPIER KEENAN smgrciver@tintilaw.com JOHN D. (978)745-3369 of COUNSEL MARC P.FREY www.tintilaw.com JERALD A.PARISELLA mpfrey@tintilaw.com OF COUNSEL JONATHAN M.OFILOS jofilos@tintilaw.com THOMAS J.HOGAN tjhogan@tintilaw.com MARCY D.HAUBER mhauber@tintilaw.com September 5. 2014 VIA HAND DELIVERY City of Salem Massachusetts Board of Health Larry Ramdin, Health Agent 120 Washington Street, 4th Floor . Salem, Massachusetts 01970 Re: Hawthorne Hotel violation of the Salem Board of Health Regulation #22 `Workplace Smoking Ban' Mr. Ramdin, As you are aware,this firm and the undersigned are counsel to the Hawthorne Hotel (the "Hotel"). The Hotel requested a hearing before the Board of Health(the "Board")regarding the above referenced matter on August 21, 2014. Today, Friday, September 05, 2014, I received a voice message from.you informing me that the hearing will be held on September 9, 2014 at 7 p.m. Unfortunately,the owner of the Hotel, Mr. Harrington,who is a necessary party in this matter, is unable to attend the meeting due to a prior commitment that cannot be rescheduled on such short notice. We respectfully request a continuance of the hearing on the Hotel's violation until the Board's regularly scheduled meeting in November. Please feel free to contact me with any questions or concerns. Si cerely, l sting Mihos, Esq. R CITY OF SALEM MASSACHUSETI'S U BOARD OF HEALTH 120 W ASHINGTON STREET,4""FLOOR PublicHWth Prevent-Promote.Protect. TEL. (978)741-1800 FAx(978) 745-0343 KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL h-amclin@salem.com L,11tIt1'R\NIDIN,RS/RII-IS,CIK),C;P-FS MAYOR HFAL,ri j AGIsN'f August 14, 2014 Hawthorne Hotel 18 Washington Square Salem, MA 01970 Dear Owner: On Monday,July 21, 2014 at 11:41 am personnel from the North Shore Cape Ann Tobacco and Alcohol Policy Program conducted a Smoke Free Workplace Law(SFWL) Inspection based on 2 complaints forwarded from the Massachusetts 1-800-compliant call in line. During this visit a violation of the Salem Board of Health Regulation#22`Workplace Smoking Ban"was issued. Documentation is now on file at the Board of Health regarding that violation. The Hawthorne Hotel is in violation of section D. 2. "It shall be unlawful for any employer or other person having control of the premises upon which smoking is prohibited by this regulation, or the business agent or designee of such person, to permit a violation of this regulation."A Hundred Dollar fine($100.00)for the first offense has been issued for this violation. In the case of three(3)or more violations within 24 months of the current violation, including the current violation,a fine of three hundred dollars($300.00). The North Shore Cape Ann Tobacco and Alcohol Policy Program and the Salem Board of Health have worked with you and your employees to demonstrate methods to ensure compliance with this regulation. Therefore,you are ordered to pay a fine of$100.00 for the violation stated above. A check or money order payable to the City of Salem must be at the Board of Health office, 120 Washington Street, 4!h floor,within ten days of receipt of this notice. Should you be aggrieved by this Order,you have the right to request a hearing before the Board of Health. A request for such a hearing must be received in writing in this office of the Board of Health within seven (7)days of receipt of this Order. At said hearing, you will be given the opportunity to be heard and to present witness and documentary evidence as to why this Order should be modified or withdrawn. You may be represented by an attorney. Please also be informed that you have the right to inspect and obtain copies of all relevant inspection or investigation reports, orders, and other documentary information in the possession of this Board, and that any adverse party has the right to be present at the hearing. If you have any questions regarding this notification please call me at 978-741-1800. Sincerely yours, L Larry Ramdin Health Agent LR/hlp CERTIFIED MAIL: 7012 1640 0002 3312 0225 cc: North Shore Cape Ann Tobacco and Alcohol Policy Program • Barbara Poremba, Board of Health Chairperson and Members SENDER:COMPLETE THIS SECTION COMPLE i-C THIS SECTION ON DELIVERY A �t ■ Complete Items 1,2,and 3.Also complete Si :.. � item 4 if Restricted Delivery is desired. # { Addressee � ■ P.nnt your name and address on the reverse X (,�� 0 Addressee seat we can return the Card to you. B. Received by(Printed Name) Date o Delivery Attach this card to the back of the mailpiece, or on the front if space permits. D. Is delivery address different from item 1? ❑Yes 1. Fk ti`&Addressed to: If YES,enter delivery address below: 3. Service Type ❑CeMBed Mail ❑Express Mall ❑Registered ❑Retum Receipt for Merchandise U a 111 111 ❑Insured Mail ❑C.O.D. ' 1 41,014. Restricted Delivery?(Extra Fee) ❑Yes 2. Article Number t l 7 012 1640 0002 3 313 0225 (transfer from&ervice label} - ---- --- ------- -—-----_----- - - PS Form 3811,February 2004 Domestic ReturnReceipt 102595 o2-M trap • U.S. Postal Servi.ceT.CERTIFIED MAILT,, RECEIPT Ir! (Domestic Mail Only; ru r1 m Postage $ m Certified Fee tlJ E3 Return Receipt Receipt Fee Here C3 (Endorsement Required) 0 Restricted Delivery Fee C3 (Endorsement Required) ,,,p Total Postage&Fees is ra Sent To IL O Sliest Apt.No.; ------- or PO Box No. ' City,State,ZIP+4 :00 August 2006See Reverse for instructions Memo RECEIVED Date:July24,2014 CITY OF SALEM To:LanyRamdin,Health Agent BOARD OF HEp,LTH From:Joyce Redford,Director RE:Workplace Smoking Inspection On Monday July 21,2014 the North Shore/Cape Ann Tobacco Alcohol Policy Program conducted a Smoke Free Workplace Law(SFWL)Inspection based on two(2)complaints forwarded from the Massachusetts i-800 complaint call in line.During this visit a violation of the"SALEM BOARD OF HEALTH REGULATION#22 WORKPLACE SMOKING BAN"was issued. Establishment Address Violation Fine Hawthorne Hotel 18 Washington St. ist Smoking in a workplace $ioo.00 Narrative: Upon entering the Hotel we took the elevator to the second floor this floor is comprised of business offices,conference rooms and guest rooms.Peter King,Inspector and I noted a strong odor of tobacco and cigar smoke. As we investigated the areas of the floor it was clear that the odor was strongest in the office area. We asked an employee about the occupants of the office where the cigar smoke was the strongest,we were told that this level(second floor)was for smoking guests and confirmed that the owner smokes in his office. We were escorted down to the Hotel Managers office and were introduced to Ms.Ledorhaus,we discussed why we were there and our findings,she too confirmed that the owner smokes in his office and asked"how this was different from a guest smoking on that floor"we explained the difference between guest verses employee and we issued a violation. She stated that she was sure that the owner would likely want to come before the Board of Health to discuss on this issue. Should you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact me at 781-586-6821 Notice. ^ , t: �City/Town ' Board'of Health/ ublic�Iealth sz i. event Promote.,,Protect: " : - This notice is to inform you that your establishment violated the Board of Health Sale-of Tobacco Products ;. &Nicotine Deliyery`Products and/or Environmental Tobacco Smoke(ETS)Regulation. . u Name of estabblishment rl Address .' Date of violation Timeof violation Minor'smage/.gender Minor's:ID# fff �jJ'i' } i d + Ne '� ,k l �J �},\ .(Ordinance,Section,Regulation) 14,;i` ;' i,d....,.,,+^:. �i �t9 + l !' 'A f i i✓' .,.r^ "' °r�r � `. k .,'.! `c �s { a .� (Act Constituting Violation) ; r Narrative information: < ; ,k w . � r4 114,, '.. S ' t l affirm,under.the pains and penalties of perjury,that the above report is,true to the best of my.knowledge ' , and belief, T ' -: ' "Inspector�(Signatu e)' + (Pram name) k ` VENDOR`�2STATEMENT I_acknowledge I received;this Viol >� b atop Noxice on F 20 'at r(A1VI/P Mand Lam being given a carbon)copy of this notice:I also atcknowledge that I``I have Been informed thatthe.-Peabod Boara of Health wily': rovide additidnal,follow;,u information to ' ' ;'.this violation notice ' , Owner/Manager/Clerk(Signature) (Print name)"? �, If vendor refuses this.Noiice 'r'if the inspector feels unsafe in delivering,it,an explanation must;be , written on'a note attached hereto.'Mailing'of this'Notice is ahus.required` . y • } ". Contact the North Shore/Cape Ann"Tobacco Alco 4 Pohcy Program at.781=586-6821 with questions r '#Establishment white ' ,°'NSTCP=yellow Board of Health pink. F'} t "�`�< :� ..'6 c . L .,.-.. ; .-.Y!•:� .4. X.. ., .. �.. 7r,< _. .. ... ^�,. , .. .. F. ,...,i:... .: ...- x s. .. F ..-. �.. 3;c+ COMPLAINT LAI NT REFERRAL Complaint Information Complaint Number 1215 Complaint received via: Live Phone Call Date of call: 7/17/2014 Time of call: 2:00 PM Workplace Information Name of workplace Hawthorne Hotel 1 Street Address: 18 Washington Square West C Zip: 01970 City: Salem Incident Details Date of the Incident: ongoing Approximate time of incident: ongoing Type of workplace: Hotel Location of the incident within the workplace: Primary work area Comments about the location of incident: Either a guest or a person attending a meeting complained that someone was sm akirenn int ee conference rooms or a private office located on the second floor of the hotel. App Y caber could sme{i smoke throughout the second floor area and esp in the office located there. Person seen smoking: Customer El Employee Unknown Other smoking indicators: ashtrays present E3 cig stubs present Additional information: This is the second compliant I've received about smoking at this hotel. I also noticed that people o have written reviews about staying at the hotel have complained about the smell of cigarette wh smoke in the hallways and conference rooms on the 2nd floor. Page 1139 of 1139 Friday,July 18,2014 TINTI, QUINN, GROVER & FREY, P.C. 27 CONGRESS STREET,SUITE 414 WILLIAM J.TINTI SALEM,MASSACHUSETTS 01970 tinti@tintilaw.com WILLIAM B.ARDIFF(1965-1995) WILLIAM F.QUINN TELEPHONE (978)7458065 • (978)7442948 MA. M CINI . - O WilliamFQuinn@aol.com OF COUNSEL SCOTT M.GROVER TELECOPIER JOHN D.KEENAN smgrover@tintilaw.com (978)745-3369 OF COUNSEL MARC P.FREY www.tintilaw.com mpfrey@tintilaw.com JONATHAN M.OFILOS jofilos@tintilaw.com THOMAS J.HOGAN tjhogan@tintilaw.com August 21, 2014 City of Salem Massachusetts Board of Health Larry Ramdin, Health Agent 120 Washington Street, 4 h Floor Salem, Massachusetts 01970 Re: Hawthorne Hotel violation of the Salem Board of Health Regulation#22 `Workplace Smoking Ban' Mr. Ramdin, This firm and the undersigned are counsel to the Hawthorne Hotel (the "Hotel"). This letter is a formal request for a hearing before the Salem Board of Health (the `Board")regarding the Order received by the Hotel on or about August 16, 2014. The Order alleged that the Hotel was in violation of Salem Board of Health Regulation#22 `Workplace Smoking Ban' ("Re ulg ation #22"). It is our understanding that in this Commonwealth, "...an establishment may designate an entire floor of residential rooms as smoking...Smoking shall not be allowed in the common areas of the floor, such as halls, vending areas, ice machine locations and exercise areas..."See, G. L. 270 § 22. The area of the Hotel alleged by the Board to be in violation of Regulation#22 is located on a smoking floor and further, the area that the alleged violation took place in is not defined as a common area within G.L. 270 § 22. Please provide us with copies and/or a time in which we will be able to inspect all relevant inspection or investigation reports, orders, and other documentary information in the possession of the Board. • Hawthorne Hotel, Request for Hearing Page 2 of 2 August 21, 2014 • Please do not hesitate to contact me if you should have any questions. S' c ely, Christina Mihos, Esq. w • • r. N CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS lu • BOARD OF HEALTH 120 WASHINGTON STREET,4"FLOOR PublicAealth Prevent.Promote.Protect. TEL. (978)741-1800 FAx(978) 745-0343 KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL hamdin(c�r�,salem.com :, L;\K1Zl'K,\biDiN,RS/R[?HS,C(t0,C:] 1 MAYOR HI7,:\i:TH AGh,N'..r August 25,2014 Kwik Shop of Salem 10 Jefferson Avenue Salem, MA 01970 Dear Owner: On Thursday May 15,2014 at 5:11pm personnel from the North Shore/Cape AnnTobacco Alcohol Policy Program conducted a compliance check to determine if your permitted establishment would sell a tobacco product to a minor. A 17 year-old male purchased tobacco from a clerk in your store and pricing of cigar product sold was$2.00. Documentation is now on file at the Board of Health regarding that sale. Kwik Shop of Salem is in violation of Section III (A)of the Salem Board of Health Regulation Affecting the Sales of tobacco to a minor and pricing of cigars no less than$2.50. According to section D. Tobacco and Nicotine Delivery Product Sales to Minors Prohibited ;the sale of cigarettes,chewing tobacco,snuff, or any tobacco in any of its forms to any person under the age of eighteen shall be punished by a fine of ($100.00 Hundred Dollar fine)for the first offense. Also according to section F. Cigar sales regulated; any retail establishment that''sells or distributes any cigar under$2.50 shall be punished by a fine of ($100.00 Hundred Dollar fine)for the first offense FOLLOWING THE THIRD(3RD)OFFENSE,THE BOARD MAY CONSIDER POSSIBLE REVOCATION OR SUSPENSION OF THE PERMIT. The North Shore Tobacco Control Program and the Salem Board of Health have worked with you and your employees to demonstrate methods to ensure compliance with this regulation. Therefore,you are ordered to pay a fine of$200.00 for the violations stated above. A check or money order payable to the City of Salem must be at the Board of Health office, 120 Washington Street,0 floor,within ten days of receipt of this notice. Should you be aggrieved by this Order,you have the right to request a hearing before the Board of Health. A request for such a hearing must be received in writing in this office of the Board of Health within seven (7)days of receipt of this Order. At said hearing,you will be given the opportunity to be heard and to present witness and documentary evidence as to why this Order should be modified or withdrawn. You may be represented by an attorney. Please also be informed that you have the right to inspect and obtain copies of all relevant inspection or investigation reports,orders,and other documentary information in the possession of this Board,and that any adverse party has the right to be present at the hearing. If you have any questions regarding this notification please call me at 978-741-1800. SSiincerely yours, 4=— Larry Ramdin Health Agent LR/hlp CERTIFIED MAIL: 70121640 0002 3313 0577 cc: North Shore/Cape Ann Tobacco Alcohol Policy Program Barbara Poremba, Board of Health Chairperson and Members Memo �.�, Date: June 13,2013 To: Larry Ramdin,Health AgentCITY OF SALEM From: Joyce Redford,Director BOARD OF HEALTH RE: Salem Tobacco Compliance Checks On May 1501&lg'h,2014,the North Shore/Cape Ann Tobacco Alcohol Policy Program conducted follow-up tobacco compliance checks in the City of Salem. In addition to Joyce Redford,Director and Peter King,Inspector,three under aged youth participated in these checks. Fourteen'(14)establishments were checked and one(1)sale occurred;however there were two(2)violations issued. One for the sale to a minor the second for pricing of the cigar product,the Black&Mild was sold for$2.00. Violations occurred in the following establishments: Establishment: Address: Offense: Fine: Kwik Shop of Salem io Jefferson Ave ist $ioo.00 Enclosed you will find a copy of the violation notices that were issued to each establishment at the time of the compliance check Should you have any questions regarding these checks please do not hesitate to contact me at 781-586-6821 1 • Memo Date: June 13,2013 To: Larry Ramdin,Health Agent CITY OF SALEM From: Joyce Redford,Redfo Director BOARD OF HEALTH RE: Salem Tobacco Compliance Checks On May 15rh&19th,2014,the North Shore/Cape Ann Tobacco Alcohol Policy Program conducted follow-up tobacco compliance checks in the City of Salem. In addition to Joyce Redford,Director and Peter King,Inspector,three under aged youth participated in these checks. Fourteen`(14)establishments were checked and one(i)sale occurred;however there were two(2)violations issued. One for the sale to a minor the second for pricing of the cigar product,the Black&Mild was sold for$2.00. Violations occurred in the following establishments: Establishment: Address: Offense: Fine: Kwik Shop of Salem 10 Jefferson Ave 1st $100.00 Enclosed you will find a copy of the violation notices that were issued to each establishment at the time of the compliance check Should you have any questions regarding these checks please do not hesitate to contact me at 781-586-6821 Violation Notice Ci own Board of Health Public Health Prevent. Promote. Protect. This notice is to inform you that your establishment violated the Board of Health Sale of Tobacco Products &Nicotine Delivery Products and/or Environmental Tobacco Smoke(ETS)Regulation. t Name of esta 's JI CD Address` Date f violation -Time of violation Minor's age/gender Minor's ID# (Ordinance,S ctio itffe i 4 - - 1 no (Act Constituting Mio anon) irA)M 1 Narrative information:)-t,dkm . t C 777 �Oct under the parrs and nalties of p e abort is true to the best of my knowledge .. ert ,that the p e ' Inspe nature) ( xat name) acknowledge I received this violation Notice o � at vd I am being given a carbon copy of this notice.I also cknowledge;that I have been informed that the Peabody Board of th will provide additional,follow-up information to this violation notice. :l (Print name) ner anager/Clerk(Signature) • . If vendor refuses this Notice or if the inspector feels unsafe in delivering it,an explanation mush s r written on a note attached hereto.Mailing of this Notice is thus required. Contact the North Shore/Cape Ann Tobacco Alcohol Policy Program at 781-586-6821 with'cueo s; ... wrc+m!•D..ell.,.:, RnnrA of NP.Alt11 rnnlc .-- Larry Ramdin From: Beth Gerard.<bethgerard.warc16@gmaiI.com> • Sent: Tuesday, September 09,2014 7:09 PM To: Heather Lyons; Larry Ramdin Subject: Fwd: Backyard Chickens Attachments: DSC_3822 jpeg; DSC_3823 jpeg; DSC_3824.ipeg Ward 6 Councillor Beth Gerard 49 Larchmont Road 978-219-7249 ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: "Mauna Murphy" <murphy7072 cr aol.com> Date: Sep 8,2014 10:03 AM Subject: Backyard Chickens To: <robertkmccarthy@verizon.net>, <leggaultatlarge@mail.com>, <emiloatlarge&gmail.com>, <sar eg atlarge74@aol.com>,<heather.famico@gmail.com>, <david davidenple�g>, <TaSiegel@,msn.com>, <Josh@io.shturiel.com>, <bethgerard.ward6 gmail.com>, <fmokeefepee@verizon.net> Cc: <dmenonnsalem.com> Good Afternoon, For those who may not know me my name is Maura Murphy and I live at 70 Dearborn Street in Salem. Four years ago,with the help of the Easter Bunny, my family started down the road of having Backyard Chickens. In good faith we asked questions to find out what rules Salem had about Backyard Chickens. At that point,the only information we came across was the concern of a noise ordinance. So, in good faith we started the journey. We consulted our neighbors and asked if they had any issues. None were shared. We invested in a lovely coop and had a secure run professionally built. Living on the edge of the Kernwood Country and the beautiful Greenlawn Cemetery,we knew that the wild life in our neighborhood was quite extensive. Foxes and coyotes have been seen roaming our streets before we had chickens,and I am happy to say we have never lost any of our backyard poultry to any of our neighborhood wildlife. Why you .may ask? It's because if the proper structure is built,the wildlife can't get the poultry, and if the wildlife can't get the poultry,there is no reason for them to visit our backyard. We also do not have any rodent issues even though we live right on the North River. Why? It's because we take precautions not to leave our chicken feed out in the open, and when we feed our feathered friends,we only feed them what they are going to consume. You really don't have to be a rocket scientist to have backyard chickens. Duringsome'of the past meetings you have heard neighbors telling horrible stories of the h P g Y � g e ell like situations living next to backyard chickens. Each and every surrounding neighbor supports our backyard chickens and the 1 wonderful ambiance our feathered friends create. My neighbors are NOT in their backyards wearing breathing respirators or covered from head to toe in hazmat suits. In fact, you may find most of my neighbors in my backyard with their kids or grandkids,just coming over to visit the "Chicks at 70 Dearborn Street." Some anti chicken people have talked about the germs,waste, feathers and dander of backyard chickens. To be _ honest,the Canada Geese,the squirrels, and the gulls leave more of that"stuff'around than our chickens do. Just like having dogs or cats, you have to be`a responsible neighbor and clean up after them. By the way, did you know that backyard chickens with access to green foods contain less cholesterol and saturated fats,more vitamin A,D, &E, and more beta carotene, folic acid, and omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids than caged hens. I am happy to say that my personal cholesterol has dropped to a safer level since eating our backyard eggs. My primary care physician was about to prescribe meds to lower my cholesterol but thanks to our chickens.and their fresh eggs,I dodge that bullet! Hmm perhaps I can get a prescription to have Backyard Chickens. I invite any of you to come by, anytime, and visit our backyard living landscape. Take a moment,watch them dirt and sunbathe, scratch for bugs, or hang out on their roost. It can be quite relaxing and enjoyable,and not a backyard of misery that some may have you believe. Thank you for your time and your efforts. Maura A. Murphy 1 2 Larry Ramdin From: Jen Lynch <lynch.sheehan@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday,September 10, 2014 7:04 AM To: Larry Ramdin Cc: Josh Turiel; Mayor Kim Driscoll Subject: BOH Regulations - Edited Attachments: Regulation SA.pdf Good morning Larry, I hope you will share my thoughts and comments with the BOH (attached). I think it is paramount that the BOH coordinate efforts with the Zoning Board, since there are portions of your regulations that conflict and compete with what they are working on. There are several sections here that do not have any bearing on public health, and in my opinion overreach. I was dismayed at the lack of transparency last night, and would be very interested to see the sources from which you are drawing your conclusions. There is a lot of research out there on the benefits (and risks) involved in backyard chicken keeping, including federally dedicated websites at the USDA(healthybirds.aphis.usda. ov) and others,which address health concerns directly. I presume the idea behind regulating the chickens is the same as why the city needs to regulate dogs-so if there is an issue,there are protections for those affected by the owners negligence. Creating regulations that are this burdensome will, frankly, not encourage people to voluntarily come forward and register their flocks. I suspect you will have rogue chicken farmers and illegal flocks throughout Salem. This is not something on which the city should be spending time or money. We have an animal control agent,that is well poised to handle inspections as needed. Other, more urban areas than Salem, have been able to embrace chickens and urban agriculture without implementing these Draconian measures. I feel like this has already gotten completely out of hand, and I sincerely hope that you and the rest of the board work to scale the regulations back to something reasonable. All the.best, Jen Lynch i - ` The Commonwealth of Massachusetts Executive Office of Health and Human Services ' Department of Public Health Bureau of Health Information, Statistics, Research & Evaluation Registry of Vital Records and Statistics DEVAL L.PATRICK 150 Mount Vernon Street, 1 St Floor GOVERNOR Dorchester, MA 02125-3105 JOHN W.POLANOWICZ SECRETARY Tel:617-740-2600 CHERYL BARTLETT,RN Fax:617-740-2711 COMMISSIONER www.mass.gov/dph/rvrs To: Vitals Information Partnership Users and Partners From: Antonio Sousa, MHA Registrar, Registry of VitaMecords and Statistics Re: VIP EDRS Software Implementation Schedule Change Circular letter 2014-09 Date: July 21,2014 The Registry was recently informed that the death module encountered issues during performance testing.Registry staff members have been working closely with EHS technical resources to identify root causes and implement corrective actions. The Registry is confident that this issue will be rectified shortly,however,as communicated throughout our roundtable and outreach sessions, deployment of the death module would not occur until thorough and comprehensive performance testing was conducted and the death module received a pass rating. At this time,deployment of the death module has been rescheduled to September 1,2014 to provide ample time for performance testing of the application. Given this extended release,the Registry strongly encourages that all stakeholders actively participate in the numerous educational sessions that will be offered throughout the months of August& September. These offerings include: • Webinar recordings on individual phases of the death module process(i.e.,medical certifier, funeral home,burial agent,clerk). • Webinar recording of the complete death module process (beginning to end) • Webinais will be available on the VIP web page by August 1. Webinars can be viewed at any time. Links to the recorded webinars will be posted on the VIP Updates webpage (www.mass,gov/dph/yip),distributed through various professional organization distribution lists, and through our listsery emails. The links will direct you to a self-registration page,but the webinars will be available for you to view immediately upon registration. o Stakeholders who watch a webinar and have questions should contact the VIP Help Desk at vip(cr�,state.ma.us. Please note"Webinar Questions"in the subject line. • A daily roundtable session will be offered at the Registry in the large conference room.Up to 40 individuals could be accommodated in one seating. Pre-registration is not required. • Sessions would occur on Monday,Wednesday and Friday(10a to 12p); Tuesday(lp—3p); and Thursday(3p—5p).Please visit our web page (www.mass_goy/dph/rvrs)for directions to the Registry. As previously communicated,the Registry will allow for a 30 day grace period(September 1 — September 30) where paper death certificates will be received and processed. As of October 1,paper certificates will no longer be accepted by the Registry. Paper certificates will only be allowed in extreme circumstances where the Registry has granted approval for submission of a paper record. Please note that, as of October 1, a paper record shall be defined as the pre-frllable pdf forms that have been provided by the Registry.Under no circumstances will the old paper death certificate records be accepted or processed. Please direct all questions to viU�,state.nia.us. Thank you. • STATEMENT OF PATRICK SCANLAN, 42 DEARBORN ST., SALEM TO BOARD OF HEALTH—September 9, 2014 MY NAME IS PATRICK SCANLAN, 42 DEARBORN STREET. I AM PROUD TO BE A LIFE-LONG RESIDENT OF SALEM. I SERVED AS A MEMBER OF THE BOARD OF HEALTH AND AS ITS CHAREMIAN FOR A PERIOD OF 5 YEARS UNDER FORMER MAYOR JEAN LEVESQUE. I WANT TO MAKE IT PEFECTLY CLEAR THAT I AM OPPOSED TO THE RAISING OF BACKYARD CHICKENS IN THE CITY OF SALEM. I ALSO WANT IT UNDERSTOOD THAT I HAVE NOTHING AGAINST CHICKENS OR THEIR OWNERS - IN FACT I LIKE THEM BOTH—I JUST STRONGLY BELIEVE THAT IT MAKES NO SENSE TO ENCOURAGE THIS PRACTICE. MEMBERS OF THE HEALTH BOARD, AS YOU ALL KNOW WE LIVE IN A DENSELY POPULATED AREA WHERE IN MANY CASES WE CAN TOUCH OUR NEIGHBORS HOUSE FROM OUR OWN. WE DON'T LIVE ON LARGE TRACKS OF LAND IN TOWNS LIKE BOXFORD, ROWLEY OR NEWBURY. THE PROLIFERATION OF THE PRACTICE OF RAISING CHICKENS IN SALEM WILL RESULT IN A MYRIAD OF PROBLEMS THAT WILL HAVE TO BE ADDRESSED BY THE HEALTH DEPARTMENT AND OTHER CITY AGENCIES. CHICKENS BRING NUISANCES TO THE NEIGHBORHOODS-- LIKE HAWKS, RACOONS, COYOTES AND OTHER VERMIN. THE HEALTH DEPARTMENT IS OVERBURDENED ALREADY TAKING CARE OF HEALTH AND SANITATION ISSUES—THEIR MANDATE BEING TO INSPECT RESTAURANTS AND OTHER EATING ESTABLISHMENTS, HYGIENE IN THE PUBLIC SCHOOLS, MAKING SURE OUR BEACHES ARE CLEAN AND SAFE TO SWIM, HOUSING, TENANT ISSUES AS WELL AS NUMEROUS OTHER RESPONSIBILITIES. 1 s THE HEALTH AGENT AND HIS STAFF HAVE ENOUGH TO DO- THEY DON'T NEED NOR SHOULD THEY HAVE TO HAVE THE BURDEN OF REGULATING BACKYARD CHICKENS. I ASK WHAT ARE WE DOING HERE!!!! SHOULD CHICKEN OWNERS' CHOICES SUPERCEDE THE BEST INTERESTS OF OTHER CITIZENS AND THE COMMUNITY AT LARGE? - I DO NOT THINK SO- ----------------------- HAVING SAID THIS I RECOGNIZE THAT THE CHICKENS ARE HERE AND, IN MY OPINION, COMMON SENSE IS OUT THE WINDOW. I DO SUPPORT THE PROPOSED HEALTH DEPARTMENT REGULATIONS AND THE ORDINANCE PROPOSED BY THE MAYOR. I WOULD ONLY HOPE THEY ARE NOT WEAKENED. IN FACT, I HOPE THEY ARE STRENTHENED, SIMILAR TO MARBLEHEAD'S WHICH GIVE ABUTTERS MORE SAY IN THE PERMITTING PROCESS. IN MY OPINION, WHAT HAS HAPPENDED RECENTLY TO COMPLAINANT ABUTTERS ON ORCHARD TERRACE IS A TRAVESTY. IT WILL HAPPEN AGAIN UNLESS IT IS UNDERSTOOD THAT THE RAISING OF BACKYARD CHICKENS IS NOT A PRESUMPTIVE RIGHT OF HOME OWNERSHIP BUT A PRIVILEGE WITH RESPONSIBILITIES. WHAT IS AND WILL ALWAYS BE SACRED IS THE RIGHT OF ALL HOMEOWNERS TO ENJOY THEIR PROPERTY NUISANCE FREE, AND TO HAVE A CITY GOVERNMENT PROTECT THIS RIGHT. THANK YOU. 2 STATEMENT OF PATRICIA SCANLAN, 42 DEARBORN ST., SALEM TO BOARD OF HEALTH—September 9, 2014 I STRONGLY AGREE WITH MY HUSBAND'S COMMENTS. WE BOTH OPPOSE CHICKENS IN THE BACKYARDS OF SALEM. IT SHOULD BE OBVIOUS TO ANYONE THAT THE VERY NATURE OF LIVING CONDITIONS IN SALEM IS NOT CONDUCIVE TO KEEPING BACKYARD CHICKENS. POULTRY BELONG ON A FARM WITH ACRES OF LAND. I GREW UP IN A RURAL AREA BUT 30 YEARS AGO CHOSE TO LIVE IN SALEM BECAUSE OF ITS CULTURE, BEAUTIFUL MARITIME HISTORY AND CITY AMENITIES. I NEVER THOUGHT THE FARM WOULD COME TO ME HERE. RAISING CHICKENS DOES NOTHING TO ENHANCE CITY LIFE AND I BELIEVE WILL CAUSE A DETERIORATION OF SALEM NEIGHBORHOODS. • WITH THE MANDATE THE SALEM BOARD OF HEALTH HAS ALREADY IN RESPONDING TO HEALTH CONCERNS IN A MULTI-FACETED, DENSELY POPULATED TOURIST CITY, "CHICKEN MONITORING" PLACES JUST ANOTHER ADDED BURDEN ON RESOURCES. BUT UNFORTUNATELY, THIS IS THE REALITY OF OUR SITUATION -- WE ARE HERE DISCUSSING CHICKEN REGULATIONS. WHEN INDIVIDUALS' CHOICES ARE FORCED ON ABUTTERS AND CAUSE NUISANCE AND/OR UNHEALTHY LIVING ENVIRONMENTS, NEIGHBORS AND ABUTTERS MUST DEPEND ON CITY OFFICIALS WHO ARE ENTRUSTED TO PROTECT RESIDENTS' RIGHTS. THE MAYOR'S ORDINANCE AND THE BOARD OF HEALTH REGULATIONS RESPONSIBLY ADDRESS THE ISSUE OF BACKYARD CHICKENS. WE ENCOURAGE THE HEALTH REGULATION TO MAINTAIN THE SETBACKS REQUIREMENTS OR EVEN MAKE THEM MORE STRINGENT TO PROTECT PROPERTY OWNERS AND ABUTTERS AND ALLOW THEM TO ENJOY THEIR PROPERTY. THANK YOU. Kevin and Kristin Cordy 1 Orchard Terrace Board of Health Meeting Commentary/Questions 9/9/14 • State requires a minimum of 6 hens- how will this affect regulations; setback, square feet per hen, etc. • Clarify slaughtering, how broad is the definition?Are there exemptions? How to protect abutters from view? • Is there a process for disposing/removing hens that are no longer productive? Egg laying stops after approximately two years. • What is the cost for the permit? Is it a one-time charge or an annual fee? • Does this allow for backyard keeping of other fowl such as turkeys, pheasants etc? Does this affect setback distances or minimum square footage of coops? Are there other health risks associated with these birds? • Who regulates the chickens and the coops? • Who confirms that the chicken owner conform to their proposals? • Who notifies the abutters? What methods of notification are required? • Coops cannot be taller then fences. It would increase nuisance and health risks, also eye sore to abutting neighbors. • Are permanently attached structures included in the definition of principal building? Is there a minimum set back from public streets? There are houses where there is no a front lawn or the back yard abuts a street. • Will abutters be notified if the hens contract a communicable disease? • Define humanly culling-what about neighbors with no fences. Onsite viewing? • If hens are to be allowed out of the enclosure, define "securely fenced." Does that mean they will be allowed closer the minimum setbacks of 15 feet? Increased of by product spread; dander, feathers, etc are no longer contained with free roam. - increased disease risk. • Noise disturbances need to be clearly defined. How are they measured? Noise bylaws are vague,there is nothing that defines what a disturbance is besides perceptible at the property line. • Currently the abutters only recourse is to take the neighbor to court.- Animal Control officer • Waste disposal. What are the requirements for where these containers are kept? • Waste management, manure runoff. Requirements need to be more clearly defined. • Who confirms that regular cleaning schedule is followed? • Will additional animal control officers be required to properly monitor? • Special health risks such as immuno-compromised individuals, allergy sufferers, small children, elderly should be given priority when weighing the decision to issue a permit.What happens when a health risk is discovered after a permit has been issues; ie. A woman becomes pregnant, a baby is born with a health risk, or someone simply gets sick over time. Unknown disease or allergy at the time. Humans must be given priority! • Planning board minutes showed the board was in general agreement that abutter buy in is critical and lot size should be considered. Many of these concerns for small lot abutters would be alleviated if a minimum lot size was enforced and abutter buy in required. Existing National Urban Agriculture Ordinances Setback Distance Requirements All Measurem ents in Feet (Many also require '/z-1 full acre lots) 1 . Homewood, AL 3O0ft. MEAN Setback Distance 89.41 ft. 2. Huntsville, AL 150 3. Fayetteville, AK 25 4. Little Rock, AK 25 5. Flagstaff, AZ 75 6. Mesa, AZ 75 7. American Canyon, 50 8. Berkeley, CA 30 9. Davis, CA 40 10. Folsom, CA 20 11 . Long Beach, CA 50 12. Los Angeles, CA 35 13. Mountainview, CA 25 14. Poway, CA 35 15. Riverside, CA 100 16. Turlock, CA 25 17. Woodland, CA 40 18. Washington, DC 50 19. Lakeland, FL 50 20. Miami, FL 100 21 . St. Petersburg, FL 300 22. Sanford, FL 150 23. Gainsville, GA 300 24. Cedar Rapids, IA 25 25. Clive, IA 150 26. Des Moines, IA 25 27. Sioux City, IA 150 28. Windsor Heights, IA 25 29. Nampa, ID 50 30. Evansville, IN 50 31 . Topeka, KS 50 32. Lafayette, LA 25 33. Anne Arundel, MD 50 34. Baltimore City, MD 25 35. Jackson, MI 100 36. Lansing, MI 40 • 37. Minneapolis, MN 100 Lea Benson 19 Pickman Street Salem, MA 01970-3842 978-778-8215 Existing National Urban Agriculture Ordinances Setback Distance Requirements All Measurements in Feet (Many also require 1/a-1 full acre lots) 38. Roswell, MN 300 39. St. Paul, MN 150 40. Kansas City, MO 100 41 . Asheville, NC 100 42. Durham, NC 15 43. Red Bank, NJ 40 44. Albuquerque, NM 20 45. Henderson, NV 350 46. New Hempstead, NY 75 47. Churchville, NY 100 48. Akron, OH 100 49. Ponka City, OK 100 50. Stillwater, OK 150 51 . Tulsa, OK 50 52. Albany, OR 10 53. Eugene, OR 20 54. Oregon City, OR 20 55. Tigand, OR 100 56. Catwissa, PA 10 57. Aiken, SC 40 58. Rapids City, SD 150 59. Columbia, TN 1000 60. Arlington, TX 50 61 . Austin, TX 50 62. Baytown, TX 100 63. Fort Worth, TX 50 64. Grand Plains, TX 150 65. Laredo, TX 100 66. Lewisville, TX 1500 67. Longview, TX 100 68. Round Rock, TX 25 69. San Antonio, TX 20 70. Victoria, TX 200 71 . Waco, TX 200 72. Ogden, UT 50 73. Oren City, UT 85 • 74. Salt Lake City, UT 50 Lea Benson 19 Pickman Street Salem, MA 01970-3842 978-778-8215 Existing National Urban Agriculture Ordinances Setback Distance Requirements All Measurements in Feet (Many also require Y2-1 full acre lots) 75. Alexandria, VA 200 76. Fairfax, VA 100 77. Falls Church, VA 40 78. Henrico City, VA 400 79. Montgomery City, VA 100 80. Newport News, VA 175 81 . Fairfax City, VA 100 82. Bothell, WA 20 83. Kent, WA 10 84. Lynnwood, WA 25 85. Madison, WI 25 86. Laramie, WI 20 Lea Benson 19 Pickman Street Salem, MA 01970-3842 978-778-8215 1 1 y ` C ¢r. s r t z t� Ft E r T 't S��.;:.,s"'.�.'.+°d�+tr.,,=.,emu i_ The U.S. Department ofAgriculture(USDA)prohibits Mention of companies or commercial products does not discrimination in all its programs and activities on the imply recommendation or endorsement by the USDA basis of race,color, national origin,age,disability,and over others not mentioned.USDA neither guarantees where applicable,sex,marital status,familial status, nor warrants the standard of any product mentioned. parental status, religion,sexual orientation,genetic Product names are mentioned solely to report factually information, political beliefs, reprisal,or because all or on available data and to provide specific information. part of an individual's income is derived from any public assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to USDA:APHIS:VS:CEAH all programs.)Persons with disabilities who require NRRC Building B,M.S.2E7 alternative means for communication of program 2150 Centre Avenue information(Braille,large print,audiotape,etc.)should Fort Collins,CO 80526-8117 contact USDA's TARGET Center at(202)720-2600 (970)494-7000 (voice and TDD). Email:NAHMS@aphis.usda.gov hftp://nahms.aphis.usda.gov To file a complaint of discrimination,write to USDA Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence #592.0511 • Avenue, S.W.,Washington, D.C.20250-9410, or call (800)795-3272(voice)or(202)720-6382(TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer. Cover photo courtesy Judy Rodriguez • Acknowledgments The Poultry 2010 study was a cooperative effort among animal health officials, university researchers,extension personnel, and poultry producers.We want to thank industry members who helped determine the direction and objectives of this study.We would also like to thank the State and Federal personnel who visited feed stores and collected data. Recognition also goes to the personnel at the Centers for Epidemiology and Animal Health for their efforts in generating reports from Poultry 2010 data and to our reviewers, who provided valuable expertise and guidance through their comments. All participants are to be commended, particularly the feed store operators and urban- chicken owners whose voluntary efforts made this component of the Poultry 2010 study possible. Larry M.Granger Director • Centers for Epidemiology and Animal Health • USDA APHIS VS 1 i Suggested bibliographic citation for this report: USDA.2011. Poultry 2010. Reference of the Health and Management of Chicken Flocks in Urban Settings in Four U.S.Citites,2010 USDA—APHIS—VS, CEAH. Fort Collins, CO #592.0511 Contacts for further information: Questions or comments on data analysis: Dr. Lindsey Garber(970)494-7000 Information on reprints or other reports: Ms.Abby Fienhold(970)494-7000 Email:NAHMS@aphis.usda.gov Feedback Feedback,comments,and suggestions regarding Poultry 2010 study reports are welcomed. Please forward correspondence via email to: NAHMS@aphis.usda.gov,oryou may submit feedback via.online survey at: http://nahms.aphis.usda.gov(Click on"FEEDBACK on NAHMS reports.") • • ii/Poultry 2010 Items of Note Raising chickens in urban environments is a growing phenomenon in the United States. In fact,some cities have recently passed regulations allowing chickens to be kept at residences. For the purpose of this report, urban chicken flocks are defined as flocks of chickens in urban settings that are owned by families,individuals,or groups of individuals. These flocks are not part of the commercial poultry industry; however,they sometimes provide chicken meat and eggs to local food systems, such as farmers'markets. To our knowledge, NAHMS Poultry 2010 marks the first time that the urban chicken population in the United States has been studied.This report is intended to provide first insights, rather than precise population estimates,about a population for which very little information is available. Sample and inferences Four large cities were selected for inclusion in the NAHMS Poultry 2010 urban chicken study: Denver,Colorado; Los Angeles, California;Miami,Florida;and New York City, New • York.These cities were selected for geographic and demographic diversity. Locating chicken owners in these cities presented a unique challenge because a national list of urban-chicken owners is not available.Data collection was accomplished by visiting local feed stores that sold chicken feed and by administering a questionnaire to feed store customers who owned chickens and lived in one of the four geographically defined metropolitan areas.The metropolitan area for each city was defined by Veterinary Services(VS)employees who were familiar with the city,with a goal to limit the boundaries to truly metropolitan areas and exclude the rural outskirts of the cities.As an additional effort to exclude rural areas, chicken owners with single family homes were required to have less than 1 acre of land to be eligible for the study. New York City presented additional challenges because only one feed store that sold chicken feed was identified.Although it.sold a moderate volume of chicken feed,the store reported that its customers tended to purchase large amounts of feed at one time. Therefore,visits to the store by data collectors would be inefficient for locating a sufficient number of chicken owners.The feed store reported that the majority of their customers that purchased chicken feed belonged to a club that maintained a specific chicken-related Web site.The study questionnaire was posted on the club's Web site and also administered at a presentation to club members.This population of urban chicken-owners was English speaking, had Internet access,and was relatively new to chicken ownership (none had raised chickens for more than 5 years).The New York inference population is limited to members of this club. USDA APHIS VS/W Flock ownership Urban-chicken owners differed across cities in a number of ways.Chicken owners in Los Angeles and Miami were more likely to complete the study questionnaire in Spanish, have a longer history of raising chickens, and have.larger flock sizes than owners in Denver and New York City.They were also more likely to have chicken breeds other than table egg breeds and to have birds other than chickens. Family tradition was a more important reason to raise chickens for owners in Los Angeles and Miami compared with owners in Denver and New York City,while food source and food quality were more important to owners in Denver and New York City. Urban chickens as a food source Very few urban-chicken owners(8.0 percent)had slaughtered chickens for human consumption during the previous 12 months. However,85.8 percent of owners kept table egg breeds.About 2 of 10 owners in Los Angeles and Miami sold or gave away eggs during r 12 months compared with 5 of 10 in Denver and 7 of 10 in New York • ing the e previous vio s u City. Urban chicken health resources Overall, 1 of 10 flocks was seen by a veterinarian for any reason during the previous 12 months.The percentage of flock owners that considered veterinarians to be a very important source of chicken health information ranged from 16.8 percent in Denver to 56.0 percent in Los Angeles. It is likely that veterinarians familiar with chicken medicine are not readily available in some urban areas.Encouraging urban veterinarians to develop these additional skills could be beneficial in keeping flocks of urban chickens healthy. Human/chicken interaction The large majority of data for this study were collected prior to the summer 2010 Salmonella enferica Enteritidis outbreak related to commercial eggs,which received substantial media coverage. Even so, about one-half of respondents were aware of a connection between poultry and Salmonella infection in people.The level of awareness about Salmonella did not differ substantially based on whether children were present in the household or whether children had contact with chickens.There were children under the age of 5 in the household for about one-fourth of flocks,and there were children 5 to 17 years of age for about one-half of flocks. Children had contact with chickens for the majority of flocks with children in the household.About one of six flock owners iv/Poultry 2010 (15.5 percent) reported that chickens had been inside their house/living spaces in the last 3 months.Nearly 9 of 10 owners always or sometimes required hand washing after handling chickens. Hand washing is an important measure for protecting human health. Movement and visitors Movement of chickens into and out of flocks was common.One-half of flocks had flock additions during the previous the 12 months, and most of these additions could be attributed to initial flock startups.About one-fourth of flocks sold or gave away live chickens. For 18.9 percent of flocks chickens or other birds were able to leave the property, and for about one-fourth of flocks neighbors'chickens were seen at least monthly in the area chickens were kept.Additionally,wild waterfowl and other birds were seen at least monthly in the chicken area for 16.4 and 53.7 percent of flocks,respectively.On the other hand, only 6.9 percent of flock owners reported that chickens were taken to a location where other birds were present(such as a fair or show)and then returned to their flocks. Educational efforts to inform chicken owners of potential disease spreads via these contacts might be helpful for keeping urban chicken flocks healthy. The majority of flocks(85.9 percent) had no business visitors enter the chicken area during the previous 12 months. For about one-half of flocks, nonbusiness visitors had entered the chicken area during the previous 12 months;22.9 percent of flocks had 10 or more occurrences of nonbusiness visitors.Visitors are a potential means of introducing disease to a flock,especially if the visitors own or have recently had contact with other birds.Visitor precautions such as footwear protection and hand washing can reduce this risk. Disposal of dead birds Overall, 6.4 percent of chickens died during the previous 12 months:For flocks on which any chickens died,the most common primary methods of carcass disposal were landfill/ trash(30.9 percent of flocks), buried on premises(23.6 percent), and taken by predator (21.1 percent). USDA APHIS VS/v Highlights of Poultry 2010 Reference of the Health and Management of Chicken Flocks in Urban Settings in the . United States, 2010 Most flocks in Denver and New York City(68.0 and 81.8 percent,respectively)had fewer than 10 chickens.Most flocks in Los Angeles and Miami(57.7 and 78.6 percent, respectively)had 10 or more chickens. Overall,85.8 percent of flocks had table egg breeds.Flocks with meat breeds;game fowl; pigeon,doves or game birds; and guinea fowl were more common in Los Angeles and Miami than in Denver or New York City. The majority of flocks in all four cities were located at single family homes. However, in New York City, nearly one-fourth of flocks were located at a community coop and one-third were located at multifamily dwellings. Chickens were kept in an outdoor pen or barn in approximately 9 of 10 flocks in all four participating cities; 15.5 percent of flocks had chickens residing inside the respondents' house/living space. Chickens or other birds were able to leave the property in 18.9 percent of flocks. Birds were able to leave the property on a higher percentage of flocks with birds other than i chickens compared with flocks with chickens only. Pet dogs and cats were seen in the chicken area at least monthly in 7 of 10 flocks.Wild birds other than waterfowl were seen in the chicken area at least monthly in 7 of 10 flocks in Denver and New York City and in 4 of 10 flocks in Los Angeles and Miami.Neighbors' chickens were seen at least monthly in 3 of 10 flocks in Los Angeles and Miami. Diarrhea, unexpected decreased production,and external parasites were each observed in approximately 9 percent of flocks during the previous 3 months. Overall, 1 of 10 flocks was seen by a veterinarian for any reason during the previous 12 months. Over one-half of flock owners considered other chicken owners,feed stores,and the Internet to be very important sources of chicken health information. More than two-thirds of flocks in Denver and New York City had acquired new chickens at least once during the previous 12 months. For flocks in which the family had chickens for less than 1 year, 87.0 percent acquired new chickens once and 13.0 percent acquired new chickens more than once. vi/Poultry 2010 Of flocks that acquired new chickens,about one-third(35.4 percent)acquired new chickens from a private individual,and a similar percentage(34.5 percent)got their chickens from a feed or farm store. Mail order/Internet was a more common method of obtaining chickens in Denver than in Los Angeles(26.6 and 9.3 percent of flocks, respectively).. The percentage of flocks that sold or gave away live chickens during the previous 12 months ranged from 17.7 percent in Denver to 37.5 percent in Miami.The percentage of flocks that sold or gave away live chickens increased with flock size. A private individual was the most common destination of chickens sold or given away. In Los Angeles,24.4 percent of flocks that sold chickens sold them through a poultry Wholesaler or dealer,and 33.3 percent sold them through a feed or farm store. Flock owners rarely took chickens to a location where other birds were present,such as a fair or show, and then returned the chickens to their flocks(6.9 percent).About 2 of 10 . flocks in Los Angeles and Miami sold or gave away eggs during the previous 12 months compared with 5 of 10 flocks in Denver and 7 of 10 flocks in New York City. About 2 of 3 flocks always or sometimes required hand washing before handling chickens,and 9 of 10 always or sometimes required hand washing after handling. chickens. Over 30 percent of flock owners in Los Angeles and Miami always or sometimes required people entering the chicken area to use footbaths,scrub boots/ shoes,wear shoe covers,wear dedicated clothing or change clothes,and/or wash hands. Few flocks(14.1 percent) had any business visitors enter the chicken area during.the previous 12 months. However, nearly one-half of flocks(47.5 percent)had nonbusiness visitors enter the chicken area,with 22.9 percent having 10 or more occurrences. Very few flocks(8.0 percent)had slaughtered chickens for human consumption in the previous 12 months.Overall,29.3 percent of flocks had at least one chicken death,and 6.4 percent of chickens died in the previous 12 months.Predators accounted for the highest percentage of chicken deaths(44.0 percent). For flocks in which any chickens died,the most common methods of carcass disposal were landfill/trash (30.9 percent), buried on.premises(23.6 percent),and taken by predator(21.1 percent). Only 8.0 percent of flocks rated income as a very or extremely important reason for • having chickens.Over one-half of flocks rated fun/hobby,food source,food quality, and USDA APHIS VS/vii animal welfare concerns as very or extremely important.About 5 of 10 flocks in Los Angeles and Miami ranked family tradition as a very or extremely important reason to have chickens,compared with 2 of 10 flocks in Denver and New York City. Food source and food quality ranked higher in Denver and New York City than in Los Angeles and Miami. There were children under 5 years of age living in the household for.about one-fourth of flocks,and children 5 to 17 years of age living in the household for about one-half of flocks. Children had contact with the chickens for 61.5 percent of flocks in which children under the age of 5 were present,and 77.1 percent of flocks in which children between the ages of 5 and 17 were present. About one-half of respondents were aware of a connection between poultry and Salmonella infection in people.Awareness of an association between poultry and Salmonella infection in people did not differ substantially based on whether children were present or if they had contact with chickens. • • viii/Poultry 2010 Table of Contents Introduction 1 Study Objectives and Related Outputs 2 Terms Used in This Report 3 Section I: Results 8 A. Management 8 1. Bird types 8 2. Location where chickens were kept 17 3.Ability to leave the property 19 4.Wild-bird feeder on property 20 5.Chicken housing 21 6.Animal contact 22 7. Proximity to other poultry 26 B.Health and Health Care 27 1.Chicken health 27 2. Health care 29 3. Health resources 31 C.Chicken Movement 35 1. Flock additions 35 2. Removal of chickens 40 . 3.Other locations with birds 42 4. Egg movement 43 B.Biosecurity 45 1.Biosecurity practices 45 2.Visitors 49 E.Slaughter and Death Loss 52 1. Chickens slaughtered for human consumption 52 2. Mortality 53 3.Carcass disposal 57 F.Characteristics of Urban Chicken Owners 58 1. Reasons for having chickens 58 2.Years of chicken ownership 62 I Children in household 64 4.Awareness of Salmonella 66 5. Membership in avian associations 67 6."Biosecurity for Birds"awareness 68 • USDA APHIS VS/ix Section Il: Methodology 70 A.Needs Assessment 70 B.Sampling and Data Collection 70 1.City selection 70 2. Feed stores 70 3.Additional data collection methods 71 4.Respondent eligibility requirements 71 C.Data Analysis 72 1.Validation 72 2.Estimation 72 3.Sample results 72 4. Response rates 72 Appendix: Sample Profile 74 • • x/Poultry 2010 m � a � � a Q �' r �, .� � oo, Q4i 00' �, 1� Introduction Introduction - The National Animal Health Monitoring System(NAHMS)is a nonregulatory program of the United States Department of Agriculture's(USDA)Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service. NAHMS is designed to.help meet the Nation's animal health information needs. Layers'99 was NAHMS'first national study of poultry and provided baseline health and management information for the table egg industry. Layers'99 estimated the prevalence and associated risk factors of Salmonella enterica Enteritidis in U.S.layer flocks. Poultry 2004 was NAHMS'second study of the U.S.poultry industry.Poultry 2004 provided information regarding bird health, bird movement,and biosecurity practices of backyard flocks,game fowl breeder flocks, and live poultry markets. The Small Enterprise Chicken study,conducted in 2007 was NAHMS'third study of the poultry industry and focused on biosecurity and bird movement on operations with 1,000 to 19,999 chickens. Poultry 2010 is NAHMS'fourth study of the U.S.poultry industry. During 2009,NAHMS conducted an extensive assessment to determine the information needs of the poultry industry,researchers,and Federal and State governments.This needs assessment resulted in three objectives for the Poultry 2010 study: 1, Describe the structure of commercial poultry industries,including interactions among poultry industry segments, movements,and biosecurity practices. Describe farm-level practices for chicken primary breeder and multiplier flocks. Identify critical factors for disease exclusion(such as Mycoplasma). 2. Estimate the prevalence and investigate risk factors associated with clostridial dermatitis(cellulitis/gangrenous dermatitis)on turkey grower farms. 3. Describe bird health, movement,and biosecurity practices of urban chicken flocks in four U.S.cities: Miami, Denver, Los Angeles,and New York City (see maps, p 4-7). "Reference of the Health and Management of Chicken Flocks in Urban Settings in Four U.S. Cities,2010"is the first in a series of reports containing information from Poultry 2010.A questionnaire was administered to customers purchasing chicken feed at feed stores in Denver, Los Angeles,and Miami and to chicken owners in New York City visiting a specific chicken-related Web site. The methods used and the number of respondents in the study can be found in . Section II:Methodology,p 70. USDA APHIS VS/1 Introduction Study Objectives and Related Outputs �- P 1. Describe the structure of commercial poultry industries, including interactions among poultry industry segments,movements,and biosecurity practices. Describe farm-level practices for chicken primary breeder and multiplier flocks. Identify critical factors for exclusion of disease(such as Mycoplasma). • Poultry 2010: Reference of United States Commercial Poultry Industry Structure, expected fall 2011 • Poultry 2010: Reference of Management Practices on Chicken Breeder Farms in the United States,expected fall 2011 • Info sheets,expected fall 2011 2. Estimate the prevalence and investigate risk factors associated with clostridial dermatitis(cellulitis/gangrenous dermatitis)on turkey grower farms. • Poultry 2010:Clostridial dermatitis on United States Turkey Farms, Interpretive Report,expected spring 2012 • Info sheets,expected spring 2012 3. Estimate the size of the urban chicken ownership population in Los Angeles. Describe bird health,movement,and biosecurity practices of urban chicken flocks in four U.S. cities: Miami, Denver,Los Angeles and New York City. • Poultry 2010: Reference of the Health and Management of Chicken Flocks in Urban.Settings in Four U.S.Cities,May 2011 • Urban chicken ownership in L.A.County,expected summer 2011 • Info sheets,expected Spring 2011 • 2/Poultry 2010 Introduction Terms Used in This Report - Community coop:A location where multiple people keep their chickens,similar to a community garden but oriented toward chickens. Flock size: Maximum number of chickens—as reported by respondents—kept at the home or at a community coop during the previous 12 months.Small flocks were defined as having 1 to 9 chickens, medium flocks 10 to 24,and large flocks 25 or more. Game birds: Birds hunted for sport or food,such as quail,pheasant,or partridge. Game fowl: Breeds of chickens,such as Kelso,Hatch,Claret,and Roundhead,intended primarily for exhibition/competition or game/sport. Operation average:The average value for all operations;a single value for each operation.is summed over all operations reporting and divided by the number of operations reporting. For example,operation average distance chickens traveled is calculated by summing reported average distance over all operations divided by number of operations(see table e.,p 40). iPet birds: Breeds not used for human food and usually housed in cages in the home, e.g.,parrots,cockatiels,parakeets,finches,canaries. Standard errors: Estimates in this report are provided with a measure of precision ,o called the standard error.A95-percent confidence interval can be created with e bounds equal to the estimate,plus or minus two standard errors. If the only error is e asp ce�ldenae sampling error,the confidence intervals created in this manner will contain the true population mean 95 out of 100 times. In the example to the left, an estimate of 7.5 e with a standard error of 1.0 results in limits of 5.5 to 9.5(two times the standard error 6 above and below the estimate).The second estimate of 3.4 shows a standard error 4 of 0.3 and results in limits of 2.8 and 4.0.Alternatively,the 90-percent confidence 2 interval would be created by multiplying the standard error by 1.65 instead of 2. Most estimates in this report are rounded to the nearest tenth. If rounded to 0,the 01 e> ro standard error was reported(0.0).If there were no reports of the event,no standard SWridaidEmms error was reported(—). Sample results: Results are based on responses from chicken owners in the geographically defined areas of the four participating cities.Respondent data were not weighted and are intended to provide insight about the population rather than precise population estimates(see Section II: Methodology,p 70). Urban chicken flocks: Flocks of chickens(1 or more)in large cities(urban settings)on less than 1 acre of land owned by families, individuals,or groups of individuals. USDA APHIS VS/3 ,�5�•S'k,�'`a`'+!Y�2E+�[a�'�,�`Mh�^A1'i�^` ��7'��i��y� 76. OM M "Al �,�� R#,i°�a w� ,.�"v�{e�'�a"°��^�� 't'`.f`��'t��,�.. 7 4•r,r ��t�`�'�� -..*� k� �c iz a. �'t . ORM 47, aOn t ,i3 vF�" x V� d2ec. S- 9x1 rF _ MAR, N{Alt t ram. gg •r a � ;OR PCs ,,r.R�A.R' `� �[+Yf`k'c Z tSv '• 1 1 • • • • • • . oili I I 1• • • • I 1 A - rs ♦ r T �.�r `R`s �h�� ;�".4.i7}6( F p� ''.�_ ��3_._ €ate rl.�"'-�"`' as�c� `�•,� rP � v' ` �k r 6[t x i, a a3� t kk o t e k C c s gg M,V— 2. > oc• r _ i. I '• 1 1 s'� fx{� z�l z �� Lc�-Yx {�''}h��`ci �"s� u- c t� s"�s/sn�. �X��'vi a '��e"�ty'�� a s,.��•_y-'n£ ak� . �'�'"�` 'ds s '��«'S f �,g�,�. k'C '� "� '�•,-t tb r` L z��ti�K��fi"`�">�,�`�Z�'S�"�,y4r"�',�43� '' $"�, 9�m,uf'a fge ��h�"✓b'�`�i ��1'{��v3'�'9'�.ts,�M�ti a {'4�'x ti t a s v �` j Y��3g'�.`s,S�y��-"��°r�3�-�� y�� "�F*i i-,�*�r�kc��r�.� �S ra ✓�.xs+4s -s- � s '��. ,� ,.� s c€��" v�'�,�'a �i�� a �g..i. �� r �+��.� s h ,,,,X t J €ems. � •� 7�aK*��Ye s�'ri�#Ls"�s�',�S'�.�-�'• �3 �`�`Cy+z.,��'y�.�-'� s t 4Va ?a yp yam C �a e Fr -' ..�, iz. sx`?t:'�j. �' �_$ �' .. -Fa t' � .s�'� �..gr'�a ,, xj'"••�*.%1�r ON ISO III i t''iY-A, 2 d tF •.t�h z�`r' »,y.d +.'�"-.�.?j., ° j.•F��lx36}'f,^F'"�1 �}{$k4 +k�' ., rs lo -k f�yy"�20, �i a. •yr�lr. � i'i7k�r,,5.�' .e...c'#`,�a.: „�,3- -.-,�.:...-r.-Y. ..i+r.'�r s N:'{�.:r�,' "O�-."°,'� ;ri.y ._yT`s�3na^-• -e X.k3 a..y..5 Pi .}/r 'r{zl n, Eit{ 5�- ty'�4 s�tf 7 4' FfiJ�r`z > F ��c }4 Dom. k`'k�' 'a 1,+'vr'7.�t3*�`xC{ r e A } rx '*- ( r p ��• rt��T l- �pr�y}�K• S 3 � L $k 6, L , '• 1 1 too WSMIMM, MM MA Wmm - x r� } 4 k { - 4. J \ I F3 owe ,; f X I Jr r _ # 1 mom �:014Ohio gas EMoth 1 S 1- F = r a � 4 I�1 i y� r fi.2 w „z F3�� tX"�- $ -.. jn'ti4;1,.�Y" piU `•u �� w 1R& y�R1i12� .an sa, � x4D. 4EdY's��,xd'+?�,j,:•gs" s_ t o Y .w��F' jo - -�e.. ,'g��:r"��qa�,� 'ib- .{9 .{,p y.' Yl x if s 5 s�¢ON; i ��.T t� fw� m✓ u as h " 1 ,alp ' �`,�.�` � `.�, ��yy "NMs.r �'S 4�>E••"4~ 2 n,a, x'9,a. .f �{ d G 'k '�4F ! Y,.- 7. F. +l )'� Y� .�Y✓ �/ P 0 v"v :S . �+r' R.",�a`. v FIRM gE f, Section I:Results-A. Management Section I: Results A. Management 1.Bird types Most flocks in Denver and New York City had fewer than 10 chickens(68.0 and 81.8 percent,respectively). a. Percentage of flocks by flock size and by city: Percent Flocks city Los Denver Angeles Miami New York All Flock Size (maximum number of Std. Std. Std. Std. Std. chickens) Pct. Error Pct.. Error Pct. Error Pct. Error Pct. Error 1 to 9 68.0 (3.7) 42.3 (3.3) 21.4 .(5.7) 81.8 (6.8) 51.5 (2.1) 10 to 24 19.7 (3.3) 32.8 (3.4) 35.7 (6.1) 12.1 (5.8) 27.1 (2.1) 25 to 99 10.2 (2.5) 21.2 (2.9) 30.4 (6.3) 6.1 (4.2) 17.4 (1.8) 100 or more 2.1 (1.2) 3.7 (1.4) 12.5 (4.3) 0.0 (--) I 4.0 (0.9) Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 8/Poultry 2010 Section I:Results-A. Management • Section I: Results A. Management 1.Bird types Most flocks in Denver and New York City had fewer than 10 chickens(68.0 and 81.8 percent,respectively). a.Percentage of flocks by flock size and by city: Percent Flocks city Los Denver Angeles Miami New York All Flock Size (maximum number of Std. Std. Std. Std. Std. chickens) Pct. Error Pct:, .Error Pct. Error Pct. Error Pct. Error 1 to 9 68.0 (3.7) 42.3 (3.3) 21.4 .(5.7) 81.8 (6.8) 51.5 (2.1) 10 to 24 19.7 (3.3) 32.8 (3.4) 35.7 (6.1) 12.1 (5.8) 27.1 (2.1) 25 to 99 10.2 _ (2.5) 21.2 (2.9) 30.4 (6.3) 6.1 (4.2) 17.4 (1.8) 100 or more 2.1 1.2 3.7 (1.4) 12.5 (4.3) 0.0 (-) I 4.0 (0.9) Total 100.0 100.0 . 100.0 100.0 100.0 8 I Poultry 2010 Section I:Results—A.Management Percentage of Flocks by Flock Size and by City Percent 100 city Denver Los Angeles 81.8 80 ®Miami New York 68.0 60 42.3 40 32.8 35.7 - 30.4 20 21 A 19.7 212 12A 10.2 12.5 6.1 3.7 • 0 _ V 2.1 0.0 1 tog 10 to 24 25 to 99 100 or more Flock Size(maximum number of chickens) The average maximum number of chickens in flocks during the previous 12 months ranged from 7.8 in New York City.to 51.1 in Miami. b.Average maximum number of chickens in*flocks during the previous 12 months,by city: Average Maximum Number of Chickens City Denver Los Angeles Miami New York All Std. Std. Std. Std. Std. Avg. Error Avg. Error Avg. Error AvgError Av . Error 13.1 (1.8) 20.9 (2.1) 51.1 (11.1) 7.8 (1.8) 21.2 (1.8) USDA APHIS VS/9 Section I:Results-A. Management Overall,85.8 percent of flocks had at least some table egg breeds. Flocks that had at least some meat breeds;game fowl; pigeons,doves or game birds;guinea fowl;and pet birds were more common in Los Angeles and Miami than in Denver or New York City. c. Percentage of flocks by bird type and by city: Percent Flocks city Los Denver Angeles Miami New York All Std. Std. Std. Std. Std. Bird Type Pct. Error Pct. Error Pct. Error Pct. Error Pct. Error Chickens: Table egg breeds (e.g., Leghorn, 95.2 (1.8) 79.9 (2.9) 78.6 (5.2) 90.9 (5.1) 85.8 (1.6) Plymouth Rock, Rhode Island Red _ Meat breeds(e.g., 6.8 (2.1) 46.0 (3.4) 42.9 (6.6} 6.1 (4.2) 29.0 (1.9) Cornish, Sex-links i Garne fowl(e.g., I Kelso, Hatch, 0.7 (0.7) 43.9 (3.2) 123.2 (5.7) 0.0 (-) 22.9 (1.6) Claret) j 1 Others(e.g., show/exhibition, ' 19.2 (3.2) 23.8 3.1 21.4 5.3 21.2 7.2 ! 21.7 2.0 Silkie,Sebright, ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) Ancona, Bantam i Turkeys 5.5 (1.6) 17.5 (2.6) 14.3 (4.6) 0.0 (-) 11.6 (1.4) Ducks/other water- fowl(e.g., geese, 12.3 (2.7) 18.5 (2.7) 23.2 (5.7) 0.0 (-) 15.6 (1.7) swans Pigeons,doves,or I game birds(e.g., 5.5 (1.8)] 36.0 (3.2) 33.9 (6.1) 3.0 (3.0) 22.6 (1.8) quail, pheas ant) ; Guinea fowl 0.0 (-) 10.1 (2.1) 14.3 (4.7) 0.0 (-) 6.4 (1.1) Pet birds(breeds not used for food and usually housed in 54.5 3.6 37.5 6.2 0.0 32.3 2.0 cages in the home � 8.9 2.3 - e. parrots, g cockatiels, parakeets, finches,canaries i Other species of birds, 0.7 (0.7) 2.1 (1.0) 1.8 (1.8) 0.0 (-) 1.4 (0.6) 101 Poultry 2010 Section I:Results-A. Management Overall,85.8 percent of flocks had at least some table egg breeds. Flocks that had at least some meat breeds;game fowl; pigeons,doves or game birds;guinea fowl;and pet birds were more common in Los Angeles and Miami than in Denver or New York City. c. Percentage of flocks by bird type and by city: .Percent Flocks City Los Denver Angeles Miami New York All Std. Std. Std. Std. Std. Bird T e Pct. Error Pct. Error Pct. Error Pct. Error Pct. Error Chickens: Table egg breeds (e.g., Leghorn, 95.2 (1.8) 79.9 (2.9) 78.6 (5.2) 90.9 (5.1) 85.8 (1.6) Plymouth Rock, . Rhode Island Red _ • Meat breeds(e.g., 6.8 (2.1) 46.0 (3.4) 42.9 (6.6) 6.1 (4.2) 29.0 (1.9) Cornish, Sex-links Game fowl(e.g., Kelso, Hatch, 0.7 (0.7)- 43.9 (3.2) 123.2 (5.7) I 0.0 (-) 22.9 (1.6) Claret Others(e.g., show/exhibition, V 19.2 (3.2) 23.8 (3.1) 21.4 (5.3) 21.2 (7.2) 21.7 (2.0) Silkie,Sebright, Ancona, Bantam j Turkeys ` 5.5 (1.6) 17.5 (2.6) 14.3 (4.6) 0.0 (-) 11.6 (1.4) Ducks/other water- fowl(e.g., geese, i 12.3 (2.7) 18.5 (2.7) 23.2 (5.7) 0.0 (-) 15.6 (1.7) swans) Pigeons,doves,or game birds(e.g., I 5.5 (1.8) 36.0 (3.2) 33.9 (6.1) 1 3.0 (3.0.) 122.6 (1.8) quail, pheasant) i Guinea fowl 0.0 (-) 10.1 (2.1) 14.3 (4.7) 0.0 (-) 6.4 (1.1) Pet birds(breeds not used for food and usually housed in cages in the home, ( 8.9 (2.3) 54.5 (3.6) 37.5 (6.2) 0.0 (-) 32.3 (2.0) e.g.,parrots, cockatiels parakeets,! finches,canaries , I Other species of birds 0.7 (0.7) 2.1 (1.0) 1.8 (1.8) 0.0 (-) 1.4 (0.6) 10/Poultry 2010 Section I: Results—A.Management Percentage of.Flocks by Bird Type.and by City Bird Type 95.2 Chickens-- VENOM 79.9 - table egg 78.6 breeds 90.9 :6.8 Chickens-- 46.0 meat breeds 42.9 6.1 City ..7 Chickens-- Denver game fowl 23.2 Los Angeles =19.2 ®Miami New York Chickens— 23.8 other L21.2 Otherffl 65.6 bird type 53.6 3.0 0 20 40 60 80 100 Percent USDA APHIS VS/11 Section I:Results—A. Management Over one-half of flocks in Los Angeles and Miami(65.6 and 53.6 percent,respectively) had other species of birds in addition to chickens. d. Percentage of flocks that had other species of birds in addition to chickens,by city: Percent Flocks city Denver Los Angeles Miami New York All Std. Std. Std. Std. Std. Pct. Error Pct. Error Pct. Error Pct. Error ! Pct. Error 23.8 (3.4) 65.6 (3.3) 53.6 (5.7) 3.0 (3.0) j 44.7 (2.0) The percentage of flocks that had other species of birds in addition to chickens increased with flock size. e. Percentage of flocks that had other species of birds in addition to chickens, by flock size: Percent Flocks Flock Size(maximum number of chickens) Small (1-9) Medium (10-24) Large(25 or more) Percent Std.Error Percent Std. Error Percent Std.Error 31.1 (2.9) 52.2 (4.3) 68.1 (4.8) 12/Poultry 2010 Section I:Results—A.Management Over one-half of flocks in Los Angeles and Miami(65.6 and 53.6 percent,respectively) had other species of birds in addition to chickens. d.Percentage of flocks that had other species of birds in addition to chickens,by city: Percent Flocks city Denver Los Angeles Miami New York All Std. Std. Std. Std. Std. Pct. Error Pct. Error Pct. Error Pct. -Error; Pct. Error 23.8 (3.4) 65.6 (3.3) 53.6 (5.7) 3.0 (3.0) j 44.7 (2.0) The percentage of flocks that had other species of birds in addition to chickens increased with flock size. • e.Percentage of flocks that had other species of birds in addition to chickens,by flock size: Percent Flocks Flock Size(maximum number of chickens) Small (1-9) Medium(10-24) Large(25 or more) Percent Std.Error Percent Std.Error Percent Std.Error 31.1 (2.9) 52.2 (4.3) 68.1 (4.8) • 12 I Poultry 2010 Section I:Results-A. Management Overall,table egg breeds accounted for 32.0 percent of birds in flocks and were the predominant breeds in New York City and Denver.In Los Angeles flocks,game fowl accounted for 24.0 percent of birds but were extremely rare in flocks in Denver and New York City.Also, Los Angeles flocks had a higher percentage of pet birds than flocks in Denver and New York City. f. Percentage of birds in flocks by bird type and by city: Percent Birds City Los Denver Angeles Miami New York All Std. Std. Std. Std. Std. Bird Type Pct. Error Pet. Error Pct. Error Pct. Error Pct. Error Chickens: Table egg breeds (e.g., Leghorn, j 58.5 (4.6) 22.5 (2.1) 26.1 (4.8) 63.6 (15.5) 32.0 (2.2) Plymouth Rock, _Rhode Island Red Meat breeds (e.g., 8.0 (3.0) 11.4 (2.3) ' 16.1 (5.0) ' 18.9 (15.6) 12.3 (2.0) Cornish,Sex-links Game fowl (e.g., Kelso, Hatch, 0.1 (0.1) 24.0 (2.9) 9.6 (3.6) 0.0 (-) 14.2 (1.9) Claret Others(e.g., show/exhibition, 15.8 (4.6) 5.5 (1.2) 4.7 (1.3) , 6.1 (2.7) 7.4 (1.3)_ Silkie, Sebright, I ; Ancona, Bantam Turkeys 3.3 (1.4) 2.2 (0.4) 3.9 (1.8) 0.0 (-) 2.8 (0.7) Ducks/other water- fowl(e.g.,geese, 9.7 (2.7) 2.6 (0.5) ( 7.3 (2.4) I 0.0 (-) 5.4 (0.9) swans) Pigeons,doves, or game birds(e.g., 3.2 (1.3) 16.2 (3.1) 19.4 (6.5) 11.4 (10.5) 14.4 (2.5) guail, pheasant Guinea fowl 0.0 (-) 1.2 (0.3) 7.3 (2.9) 1 0.0 (-) 2.7 (1.1) Pet birds(breeds not 1 used for food and usually housed in cages in the home, 1.3 (0.4) 13.7 (2.1) 5.5 (2.1) 0.0 (-) 8.4 (1.2) e.g., parrots, cockatiels, parakeets, finches, canaries Other species of birds 0.1 (0.1) 0.7 (0.4) 0.1 (0.1) 0.0 (-) 0.4 (0.2) Total 100.0 1.00.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 USDA APHIS VS 113 Section I: Results-A. Management Table egg breeds accounted for nearly one-half of the chickens in all flocks(48.5 percent), ranging from 35.5 percent of chickens in Los Angeles to 71.8 percent in New York City. Game fowl accounted for 37.8 percent of chickens in Los Angeles. g.Percentage of chickens by chicken type and by city: Percent Chickens City Los Denver Angeles Miami New York All Std. Std. Std. Std. Std. Chicken Type Pct. Error Pct. Error Pct. Error Pct. Error Pct. Error Table egg breeds (e.g., Leghorn, 71.0 (5.1) 35.5 (3.1) 46.1 (7.0) . 71.8 (16.2) 48.5 (2.7) Plymouth Rock, I I Rhode Island Red Meat breeds(e.g., 9.7 (3.6) 18.1 (3.5) 28.6 (7.2) 21.4 (17.0) -18.7 (2.8) Cornish, Sex-links _ Game fowl(e.g.,Kelso, Hatch, Claret) 0.1 (0.1) 1 37.8 (3.9) 17.0 (6.4) 0.0 (--) 21.6 (2.8) Others(e.g., show/exhibition, 19.2 (5.6) 8.6 (2.0) 8.3 (2.4) 11 6.8 (3.2) 11.2 (1.9) Silkie, Sebright, Ancona, Bantam Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 • 14/Poultry 2010 Section I:Results-A.Management Table egg breeds accounted for nearly one-half of the chickens in all flocks(48.5 percent), ranging from 35.5 percent of chickens in Los Angeles to 71.8 percent in New York City. Game fowl accounted for 37.8 percent of chickens in Los Angeles. g.Percentage of chickens by chicken type and by city: Percent Chickens City Los Denver Angeles Miami New York All Std. Std. Std. Std. Std. Chicken Type Pct. Error Pct. Error Pct. Error Pct. Error Pct. Error Table egg breeds Leghorn, Plymouth Rock, 71.0 5.1 35.5 3.1 46.1 7.0 . 71.8 16.2 48.5 2.7 Plymouth Rhode Island Red Meat breeds(e.g., 9.7 (3.6) 18.1 (3.5) 28.6 (7.2) 21.4 (17.0) -18.7 (2.8) Comish,Sex-links • Game fowl(e.g., 0.1 (0.1) 37.8 (3.9) 17.0 (6.4) 0.0 (--) 21.6 (2.8) Kelso, Hatch, Claret Others(e.g., _. show/exhibition, 19.2 (5.6) 8.6 (2.0) 8.3 (2.4) 6.8 (3.2) 11.2 (1.9) Silkie,Sebright, Ancona, Bantam Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 14/Poultry 2010 Section I:Results—A. Management Percentage of Chickens by Chicken Type and by City Percent 80 City 71.0 71.8 Denver Los Angeles 60 M Miami New York 46.1 40 37.8 35.5 28.6 21.4 19.2 20 18.1 17.0 9.7 8.6 8.3 8.8 0 0.1 0.0 Table egg breeds Meat breeds Game fowl Others Chicken Type I USDA APHIS VS/15 Section I: Results—A. Management The.percentage of table egg breeds in the flock decreased as flock size increased. h.Percentage of chickens by chicken type and by flock size: Percent Chickens Flock Size(maximum number of chickens) Large Small 1-9 Medium 10-24 25 or more Std. Std. Std. Chicken Type Pct. Error Pct. Error Pct. Error Table egg breeds j (e.g., Leghorn, Plymouth 79.8 (2.5) 54.2 (3.5) 39.2 (3.8) Rock, Rhode Island Red _ Meat breeds 8.1 (1.7) 15.9 (2.6) 22.2 (4.2) (e.g.,Cornish, Sex-links Game.fowl(e.g., Kelso, 3.9 (1.2) 18.7 (2.7) 26.7 (4.3) Hatch, Claret) Others(e.g.,show/ exhibition,Silkie,Sebright, 8.2 (1.6) 11.2 (2.2) 11.9 (2.9) Ancona, Bantam Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 16/Poultry 2010 Section I: Results—A.Management • The.percentage of table egg breeds in the flock decreased as flock size increased. h.Percentage of chickens by chicken type and by flock size: Percent Chickens Flock Size(maximum number of chickens) Large Small 1-9 Medium 10-24 25 or more Std.: Std. j Std. Chicken Type Pct. Error. Pct. Error Pct. Error Table egg breeds (e.g.,Leghorn, Plymouth 79.8 (2.5) 54.2 (3.5) 39.2 (3.8) Rock, Rhode Island Red Meat breeds (e .,Cornish, Sex-links 8.1 (1.7) 15.9 (2.6) I 22.2 (4.2) Game#owl(e.g., Kelso, I Hatch;Claret) 3.9 (1.2) 18.7 (2.7) 26.7 (4.3) Others(e.g.,show/ exhibition,Silkie,Sebright, 8.2 (1.6) 11.2 (2.2) j 11.9 (2.9) • Ancona, Bantam Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 • 16/Poultry 2010 I Section I:Results-A. Management 2.Location where chickens were kept The majority of flocks(81.2 percent)were located at single family homes. In New York City,nearly one-fourth of flocks(24.2 percent)were located at a community coop and one- third(30.3 percent)were located at multifamily dwellings."Other"locations where birds were kept included place of business,classroom,or someone else's home. a. Percentage of flocks by location where chickens were kept and by city: Percent Flocks City Los Denver Angeles Miami New York All Std. Std. Std. Std. Std. Location Pct. Error Pct. Error Pct. Error Pct. Error Pct. Error Community coop 2.0 (1.1) 11.2 (2.3) 9.8 (4.1) 124.2 (7.6) 8.7 (1.3) Single-family home 95.2 (1.7) 77.6 (3.1) 76.5 (6.2) 45.5 (8.8) 81.2 (1.8) on less than 1 acre Multifamily dwelling (e.g.,apartment, 0.7 (0.7) 6.5 (1.9) ( 5.9 (3.4) 30.3 (8.1) 6.3 (1.2) condo Other 2.1 (1.2) 4.7 (1.6) r 7.8 (3.9) 0.0 (-) 3.8 (1.0) Total 100.0 100.0 1100.0 100.0 100.0 USDA APHIS VS/17 Section I:Results-A. Management Percentage of Flocks by Location Where Chickens were Kept and by City Percent 100 95.2 City Denver Los Angeles 80 77.6 76.5 ®Miami New York 60 46.5 40 30.3 24.2 20 11.2 9.8 6.5 5.9 4.7 7.8 2.0 Community Single-family Multifamily Other coop home on less dwelling than 1 acre Location Flock location was similar across size groups. b. Percentage of flocks by location where chickens were kept and by flock size: Percent Flocks Flock Size(maximum number of chickens) Large Small 1-9 Medium 10-24 25 or more Std. Std. Std. Location Pct. Error Pct. Error Pct. Error Community coop 6.2 (1.6) 8.4 (2.7) 15.7 (4.0) Single-family home on 85.7 (2.2) _ 78.5 _ (4.0) 73.5 (4.9) less than 1 acre Multifamily dwelling 6.2 (1.5) 6.6 (2.4) 6.0 (2.6) e. ., apartment, condo Other 1.9 (0.9) 6.5 (2.4) 4.8 (2.4) Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 18/Poultry 2010 Section I:Results-A. Management • Percentage of Flocks by Location Where Chickens were Kept and by City Percent 100 95:2 City Denver Los Angeles 80 n g.78.5 M Miami New York 60 45.5 40 30.3 24.2 20 11.2 9.8 • 8.5 5.9 7.8 2.0 0.7 2.1 0 4.7 0.0 Community Single-family Multifamily Other coop home on less dwelling than 1 acre Location Flock location was similar across size groups. b. Percentage of flocks by location where chickens were kept and by flock size: Percent Flocks Flock Size(maximum number of chickens) Large Small 1-9 Medium 10-24 25 or more Std. Std. Std. Location Pct. Error Pct. Error Pct. Error Community coop 6.2 (1.6) 8.4 (2.7) 15.7 (4.0) Single-family home on 85.7 . (2.2) 78.5 (4.0) 73.5 (4.9) less than 1 acre Multifamily dwelling 6.2 (1.5) 6.6 (2.4) 6.0 e. .,apartment,condo (2.6) Other 1.9 (0.9) 6.5 (2.4) 4.8 (2.4) Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 �\ 18/Poultry 2010 Section I: Results—A.Management 3.Abilityto leave the property P P Y Overall,birds(either chickens or other birds)could leave the property on 18.9 percent of flocks.Specific information regarding how chickens were able to leave the property was not collected. Chickens might have been kept in an unfenced area. a. Percentage of flocks in which chickens or other birds could leave the property(even if they did not leave),by city: Percent Flocks City Denver Los Angeles Miami New York All Std. Std. Std. Std. Std. Pct. Error Pct. Error Pct. Error Pct. Error Pct. Error 14.4 (2.9) 21.3 (3.0) 27.3 (6.2) 12.1 (5.8) 18.9 (1.9) Birds could leave the property on a higher percentage of flocks with birds other than chickens compared with flocks with chickens only. b. Percentage of flocks in which chickens or other birds could leave the property(even if they did not leave),by bird type: Percent Flocks Bird Type Chickens Only Chickens and Other Birds Percent Std.Error Percent Std.Error 13.8 (2.3) 25.4 (3.2) USDA APHIS VS/19 Section I:Results-A. Management 4.Wild-bird feeder on property The percentage of flocks that had a wild-bird feeder at the location where chickens were kept was similar across cities. Overall,29.0 percent of flocks had a wild-bird feeder in the chicken area. a. Percentage of flocks with a wild-bird feeder at the location where chickens were kept, by city: Percent Flocks city Los Denver Angeles Miami New York All Wild-bird Std. Std. Std. Std. Std. Feeder? Pet. Error Pct. Error 1 Pct. Error Pct. Error Pct. Error Yes 30.1 (3.9) 31.9 (3.2) i 20.8 (5.8) 21.2 (7.2) 29.0 (2.2) No 69.9 (3.9) 52.7 (3.5) 64.1 (6.6) ` 78.8 (7.2) i 62.2 (2.3) Did not 15.4 (2.6) 15.1 (4.6) 0.0 (--) 8.8 (1.3) know Total 100.0 ( 100.0 - 1 100.0 100.0 1100.0 i The percentage of flocks with a wild-bird feeder was similar across size groups. b. Percentage of flocks with a wild-bird feeder at the location where chickens were kept, by flock size: Percent Flocks Flock Size(maximum number of chickens) Small (1-9) Medium(10-24) Large(25 or more) Std. Std. Std. Wild-bird Feeder? Pct. Error Pct. Error Pct. Error Yes 30.7 (3.1) 24.1 (4.0) 31.1 (4.8) No 64.7 3.2 59.8 4.6 58.9 5.1 ( ) ( ) ( ) Did not know 4.6 (1.4) 16.1 (3.4) 10.0 (3.2) Total 100.0 i 100.0 100.0 20/Poultry 2010 Section I:Results-A.Management 4.Wild-bird feeder on property The percentage of flocks that had a wild-bird feeder at the location where chickens were kept was similar across cities.Overall,29.0 percent of flocks had a wild-bird feeder in the chicken area. a.Percentage of flocks with a wild-bird feeder at the location where chickens were kept, by city: Percent Flocks city Los Denver Angeles Miami- New York All Wild-bird Std. Std. Std. Std. Std. Feeder? Pet. Error Pct. Error Pct. Error Pct. Error Pct. Error Yes 30.1 (3.9) 31.9 (3.2) 20.8 (5.8) 21.2 (7.2) 29.0 (2.2) No 69.9 (3.9) 52.7 (3.5) 64.1 (6.6) 78.8 (7.2) 62.2 (2.3) • Did not 0.0 (--) 15.4 (2.6) 15.1 (4.6) 0.0 (--) 8.8 (1.3) know Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 The percentage of flocks with a wild-bird feeder was similar across size groups. b.Percentage of flocks with a wild-bird feeder at the location where chickens were kept, by flock size: Percent Flocks Flock Size(maximum number of chickens) Small(1-9) Medium(10-24) Large(25 or more) Std. Std. Std. Wild-bird Feeder? Pct. Error Pct. Error Pct. Error Yes 30.7 (3.1) 24.1 (4.0) j 31.1 (4.8) i No 64.7 (3.2) 59.8 (4.6) j 58.9 (5.1) Did not know 4.6 (1.4) 16.1 (3.4) 10.0 (3.2) Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 20/Poultry 2010 Section I:Results-A. Management 5.Chicken housing Chickens were kept in an outdoor pen or barn on approximately 9 of 10 flocks in each city; 15.5 percent of flocks had chickens residing inside the respondent's house/living space. a.Percentage of flocks that were ever kept in the following types of housing during the previous 3 months,by city: Percent Flocks City Los Denver Angeles Miami New York All Std. Std. ( Std. Std. i Std. HousingType Pct. Error Pct. Error Pct. Error Pct. Error; Pct. Error Inside house/ livingspa ce 24.8 (3.6) 9.8 (2.2) 11.5 (4.5) 12.1 (5.8) 15.5 (1.7) In an outdoor poultry pen or, 91.7 (2.3) 89.1 (2.3) 94.2 (3.3) 90.9 (5.1) 90.8 (1.4) poultry house/barn o the basement 14.5 (2.9) 2.2 (1.1) , 1.9 (1.9) 6.1 (4.2) ! 6.8 (1.2) orc garage _ I Somewhere else ) 2.1 (1.1) , 2.7 (1.2) 3.8 (2.6) 6.1 (4.2) i 2.9 (0.8) The percentages of flocks by housing types were similar across size groups. b.Percentage of flocks that were ever kept in the following types of housing during the previous 3 months,by flock size: Percent Flocks Flock Size(maximum number of chickens) Large Small 1-9 Medium 10-24 25 or more Std. Std. Std. Housing Type Pct. Error Pct. Error i Pct. Error Inside house/living space 19.0 (2.6) 11.7 (3.1) j 11.6 (3.5) In an outdoor poultry pen or oult house/barn 89.4 (2.1) 90.1 (2.8) 95.3 (2.3) In the basement 6.9 (1.7) 5.4 (2.2) ! 8.1 (2.9) or garage....._ Somewhere else 2.8 (1.1) 3.6 (1.8) 1 2.3 (1.6) USDA APHIS VS/21 Section I: Results-A. Management 6.Animal contact Wild birds other than waterfowl were seen daily in the usual chicken area in 39.5 percent of flocks. Pet dogs and cats were seen daily in the chicken area in 62.6 percent of flocks. Over three of four flocks rarely or never saw wild waterfowl or the neighbors'chickens and/or other birds in the chicken area(83.6 and 75.2 percent of flocks, respectively). a.Percentage of flocks by frequency,during the previous 3 months,that the following animals were seen or evidence of them was seen in the usual chicken area: Percent Flocks Frequency Rarely or Daily Weekly Monthly Never Std. Std. Std. Std. AnimalType Pct. Error Pct. Error Pct. Error I Pct. Error Total Wild waterfowl 8 7 (1.3) 5.1 (1.1) 2.6 (0.8) 83.6 (1.8) 100.0 (e.g.,ducks,geese) Wild birds other 39.5 (2.2) 8.3 (1.4) 5.9 (1.2) 46.3 (2.3) 100.0 than waterfowl _ _ _ _ Rodents 10.7 (1.5) 10.5 (1.5) 13.4 (1.7) 65.4 (2.3) 100.0 rats or mice Wild animals other than rodents (e.g.,feral cats, 13.0 (1.6) 13.4 (1.6) 15.2 (1.7) j 58.4 (2.3) 100.0 raccoons,foxes, I skunks,opossums, etc. Neighbors' chickens and/or 14.3 (1.7) 4.9 (1.0) 5.6 (1.1) 75.2 (2.0) 100.0 other birds I Pet dogs or cats 62.6 (2.3) 6.2 (1.2) 2.9 (0.8) ( 28.3 (2.1) 100.0 I 22/Poultry 2010 Section I:Results-A.Management 6.Animal contact Wild birds other than waterfowl were seen daily in the usual chicken area in 39.5 percent of flocks.Pet dogs and cats Were seen daily in the chicken area in 62.6 percent of flocks. Over three of four flocks rarely or never saw wild waterfowl or the neighbors'chickens and/or other birds in the chicken area(83.6 and 75.2 percent of flocks,respectively). a.Percentage of flocks by frequency,during the previous 3 months,that the following animals were seen or evidence of them was seen in the usual chicken area: Percent Flocks Frequency Rarely or Daily Weekly Monthly. Never Std. Std. Std. Std. Anima[Type Pct. Error Pct. Error Pct. Error Pct. Error Total Wild waterfowl 8.7 (1.3) 5.1 (1.1) 2.6 (0.8) 83.6 (1.81 100.0 e. .,ducks,.geese • Wild birds other than waterfowl 39.5 (2.2) 8.3 (1.4) 5.9 (1.2) 46.3 (2.3,- 100.0 Rodents 10.7 (1.5) 10.5 (1.5) 13.4 (1.7) 65.4 (2.3) 100.0 rats or mice Wild animals other than rodents (e.g.,feral cats, 13.0 (1.6) 13.4 (1.6) 15.2 (1.7) ! 58.4 (2.3) 100.0 raccoons,foxes, i skunks,opossums, etc. Neighbors' chickens and/or 14.3 (1.7) 4.9 (1.0) 5.6 (1.1) 75.2 (2.0) 100.0 other birds Pet dogs or cats 62.6 (2.3) 6.2 (1.2) 2.9 (0.8) 28.3 (2.1) 100.0 221 Poultry 2010 Section I:Results-A. Management Wild birds other than waterfowl were seen in the usual chicken area at least monthly in 7 of 10 flocks in Denver and New York City and in 4 of 10 flocks in Los Angeles and Miami.Neighbors'chickens were seen at least monthly in one-third of flocks in Los Angeles and Miami.Overall,pet dogs or cats were seen in the usual chicken area in 7 of 10 flocks. b. Percentage of flocks in which,during the previous 3 months,the following animals were seen or evidence of them was seen in the usual chicken area at least monthly,by city: Percent Flocks City Los Denver Angeles Miami New York All Std Std. Std. Std. Std. Animal Type Pct. Error Pct. Error .Pct. Error Pct., Error Pct. Error Wild waterfowl (e.g.,ducks, 14.6 (2.9) 16.3 (2.7) 31.5 (5.9) 0.0 (--) 16.4 (1.8) geese) Wild birds other 71.3 (3.8) 40.3 (3.5) 40.4 (6.3) 71.9 (8.1) 53.7 (2.3) than waterfowl Rodents(e.g., 40.6 (4.1) 29.1 (3.3) 38.9 (7.0) 31.3 (8.3) 34.6 (2.3) rats or mice Wild animals other than rodents(e.g., feral cats, 58.9 (4.0) 28.2 (3.2) 33.3 (7.0) 51.6 (9.1) 41.6 (2.3) raccoons,foxes, skunks, opossums,etc. Neighbors' chickens and/or 12.5 (2.7) 35.5 (3.4) . 32.1 (6.4) 6.3 (4.3) 24.8 (2.0) other birds Pet dogs or cats 79.3 (3.4) 68.1 (3.2) 64.8 (6.7) 69.7 (8.1) 71.7 (2.1) USDA APHIS VS/23 Section I:Results—A. Management Percentage of Flocks in which,During the Previous 3 Months, the Following Animals were Seen or Evidence of Them was Seen in the Usual Chicken Area at Least Monthly,by City Animal Type 14.6 1Wild 16.3 waterfowl 31.5 0.0 71.3 Wild birds 40.3 other than 40.4 waterfowl 71.9 40.6 Rodents 29.1 38.9 31.3 58.9 Wild animals 28.2 City other than 33.3 Denver rodents 51.6 Los Angeles 12.5 Miami Neighbors' A 35.5 ®New York chickens and/or 32.1 other birds 6.3 79.3 Pet dogs 111 1111RIM N68.1 or cats 64.8 69.7 0 20 40 60 80 100 Percent 24/Poultry 2010 Section I:Results—A. Management 7 Percentage of Flocks in which,During the Previous 3 Months, the Following Animals were Seen or Evidence of Them was Seen In the Usual Chicken Area at Least Monthly,by City Animal Type 14.6 6Wild 16:3 waterfowl 31.5 0.0 71.3 Wild.birds 4 40.3 other than 0.4 waterfowl 71.9 40.6 Rodents 29'1 38.9 31.3 • Wild animalsJW218.2 58.9 City otherthan33.3 ■Denver rodents 51.6 Los Angeles 12.5. Miami Neighbors' 35•5 New York chickens and/or 32 1 other birds 16.3 79.3 Pet dogs 68.1 or cats 64.8 69.7. 0 20 40 60 80 100 Percent 241 Poultry 2010 f Section I:Results-A.Management Rodents were seen in the usual chicken area during the previous 3 months in a lower percentage of small flocks than large flocks(26.8 and 47.7 percent,respectively). A similar relationship was shown for neighbors'chickens and/or other birds. c. Percentage of flocks in which,during the previous 3 months,the following animals were seen or evidence of them was seen in the usual chicken area at least monthly,by animal type and by flock size: Percent Flocks Flock Size(maximum number of chickens) Small (14) Medium (10-24) Large 25 or more Std. Std. Std. Animal Type Pct. Error Pct. Error Pct. Error Wild waterfowl 12.6 (2.2) 21.4 e. .,ducks,geese (3.9) i 19.3 (4.2) Wild birds other 53.8 (3.2) 47.7 (4.7) 1 60.9 (5.2) than waterfowl Rodents(e.g., rats or i mice _26.8 (3.0) 39.1 (4.6) 1 47.7 (5.3) Wild animals other than rodents(e.g.,feral cats, 46.0 (3.3) 36.7 (4.6) 36.8 (5.2) raccoons,foxes, skunks, opossums,etc. i Neighbors'chickens i 16.3 (2.5) 32.1 (4.5) � 36.4 (5.1) and/or other birds i Pet dogs or cats 70.0 (3.0) 75.7 (4.1) j 70.8 (4.8) USDA APHIS VS/25 Section I:Results-A. Management 7.Proximity to other poultry Overall,36.8 percent of flocks were located within 0.1 mile of the nearest neighbor with poultry.A similar percentage(34.8 percent)did not know the distance to the nearest neighbor with poultry. Percentage of flocks by approximate distance(in miles)from chicken area to the nearest neighbor with poultry,and by city: Percent Flocks city Los Denver Angeles Miami New York All Std. Std. Std. Std. Std. Distance Miles Pct. Error Pct. Error Pct. Error Pct. Error Pct. Error Less than 0.10 33.1 (4.0) 45.7 (3.6) ( 25.9 (6.3) 18.8 (7.0) 36.8 (2.3) 0.10 to 0.24 .2.8 (1.4) 5.9 (1.7) 5.6 (3.0) 6.3 (4.3) i 4.8 (1.0) 0.25 to 0.99 9.0 2.4 4.8 1.6 i 9.3 4.1 15.6 6.5 I 7.6 1.3 1.00 or more 9.6 (2.5) 17.0 (2.6) 1 29.6 (6.3) 15.6 (6.5) 16.0 (1.7) Did not know 45.5 (4.2) 26.6 (3.2) j 29.6 (6.3) 43.7 (8.9) t 34.8 (2.3) Total 100.0 100.0 1100.0 100.0 100.0 I - x 26/Poultry 2010 Photo courtesty Judy Rodriguez Section I:Results-A.Management 7.Proximity to other poultry Overall,36.8 percent of flocks were located within 0.1 mile of the nearest neighbor with poultry.A similar percentage(34.8 percent)did not know the distance to the nearest neighborwith poultry. Percentage of flocks by approximate distance(in miles)from chicken area to the nearest neighbor with poultry,and by city: Percent Flocks city Los Denver Angeles Miami New York All Std. Std. Std. Std. Std. Distance Miles Pct. Error Pct. Error Pct. Error Pct. Error Pct. Error Less than 0.10 33.1 (4.0) 45.7 (3.6) ( 25.9 (6.3) 18.8 (7.0) 36.8 (2.3) 0.10 to 0.24 .2.8 (1.4) 5.9 (1.7) 5.6 (3.0) 6.3 (4.3) 4.8 (1.0) • 0.25 to 0.99 9.0 (2.4) 4.8 (1.6) I 9.3 (4.1) 15.6 (6.5) 7.6 (1.3) 1.U0 or more 9.6 (2.5) 17.0 (2.6) 29.6 (6.3) 15.6 (6.5) 16.0 (1.7) Did not know 45.5 (4.2) 26.6 (3.2) 29.6 (6.3) 43.7 (8.9) 34.8 (2.3) Total 100.0 100.0 1100.0 100.0 100.0 26/Poultry 2010 Photo courtesty Judy Rodriguez Section I:Results-B.Health and Health Care B. Health and I.Chicken health Health Care External parasites were observed in 15.0 percent of flocks in Los Angeles during the previous 3 months. Only 2.0 percent of flocks in Denver observed respiratory problems. In general,a smaller percentage of flocks in Denver and Los Angeles observed health problems than flocks in New York City."Other"problems included internal parasites and heat stress. a. Percentage of flocks in which the following health problems were observed during the previous 3 months, by city: Percent Flocks City Los Denver Angeles Miami New York All Std. Std. Std. Std. Std. Problem Pct. Error Pct. Error; Pct. Error Pct. Error Pct. Error Diarrhea 6.8 (2.0) 7.0 (1.9) 1 5.7 (3.2) 39.4 (8.6) .9.3 (1.3) Respiratory (nasal/eye discharge, cough/rattle/ 2.0 (1.2) 8.0 (1.9) 17.0 (5.2) 12.1 (5.8) 7.4 (1.2) sneeze, "snicking) ----------..__..-..-------- Neurologic(falling over,weakness, 0.7 (0.7) 3.2 (1.3)1 1.9 (1.9) 0.0 (--) 1.9 (0.7) trembling) Weight loss 4.1 (1.6) 5.3 (1.6)' 0.0 (-) 0.0 (-) 3.8 (0.9) Feed refusal/depression 2.7 (1.4) 3.2 (1.3) 5.7 (3.1) 3.0 (3.0) 3.3 (0.9) (droopy birds Unexpected decreased production (egg laying, 5.5 (1.9) I 8.6 (2.0)` 7.5 (3.8) 24.2 (7.6) 8.6 (1.3) hatchability, weightgain) Unexplained 6.1 (2.0) 5.9 (1.7) 9.4 (4.0) 12.1 (5.8) 6.9 (1.2) death loss External parasites 4.1 (1.7) 1 15.0 (2.5) 5.7 (3.3) 6.1 (4.2) 9.3 (1.4) lice/mites �� Lameness/ 4.8 (1.7) 1 3' 7 (1.4)' 3.8 (2.7) 15.2 (6.3) 5.0 (1.0) le problems Other 1.4 (1.0) I 0.5 (0.5) 1.9 (1.9) 15.2 (6.3) 2.1 (0.7) Any of the above 21.9 (3.4) , 29.0 (3.2) 39.6 (6.9) 63.6 (8.5) 30.6 (2.2) USDA APHIS VS/27 Section I: Results-B. Health and Health Care A higher percentage of large flocks(46.6 percent)had at least one health problem during the previous 3 months compared with small flocks(25.0 percent),although large flocks had more birds available to become sick.A lower percentage of small flocks observed respiratory problems compared with medium and large flocks. b. Percentage of flocks in which the following health problems were observed during the previous 3 months,by flock size: Percent Flocks Flock Size(maximum number of chickens) Large Small 1-9 Medium 10-24 25 or more Std. Std. Std. Problem Pct. Error Pct. Error Pct. Error Diarrhea 11.5 (2.1) 7.9 (2.6) 5.6 (2.4) Respiratory(nasal/eye discharge,cough/rattle/ 1.8 (0.9) 11.4 (2.9) 15.7 (3.9) sneeze, "snicking") Neurologic(failing over, 1.4 (0.8} 019 (0.9) 4.5 (2.2) weakness,trembling) I Weight loss 3.7 (1.3) 2.6 (1.5) 5.6 (2.4) Feed refusal/depression droo birds) 3.2 (1.2) 3.5 (1.7) 3.4 (2.0) Unexpected decreased production(egg laying, 10.2 (2.0) 3.5 (1.7) 11.2 (3.3) hatchability,weight ain Unexplained 4.1 (1.4) 5.3 (2.1) 15.7 (3.8) death loss External parasites i (lice/mites) 6.5 (1.7) 8.8 (2.6) 16.9 (4.0) Lameness/leg problems 3.2 (1.2) 4.4 0.9) 10.1 (3.2) Other 3.2 (1.2) 1.8 (1.2) j 0.0 (--): Any of the above 25.0 (2.8) I 28.9 (4.3) 46.6 (5.3) 28/Poultry 2010 r section I:Results-B. Health and Health Care � Q A higher percentage of large flocks(46.6 percent)had at least one health problem during the previous 3 months compared with small flocks(25.0 percent),although large flocks had more birds available to become sick.A lower percentage of small flocks observed respiratory problems compared with medium and large flocks. b. Percentage of flocks in which the following health problems were observed during the previous 3 months,by flock size: Percent Flocks Flock Size(maximum.number of chickens) Large Small 1-9 Medium 10-24 25 or more Std. Std. Std. Problem Pct. Error Pct. Error Pct. Error Diarrhea 11.5 (2.1) 7.9 (2.6) i 5.6 (2.4) Respiratory(nasaVeye discharge,cough/rattle/ 1.8 (0.9) 11.4 (2.9) 15.7 (3.9) sneeze, "snicking") _ Neurologic(falling over, 1.4 weakness,tremblin (0.8) 0.9 (0.9) 4.5 (2.2) Weight loss 3.7 (1.3) 2.6 (1.5) 5.6 (2.4) Feed refusal/depression 3.2 (1.2) 3.5 (1.7) 3.4 (2.0) (droopy birds Unexpected decreased production(egg laying, 10.2 (2.0) 3.5 (1.7) i 11.2 (3.3) hatchability,weightgain) Unexplained death loss 4.1 (1.4) 5.3 (2.1) I 15.7 (3.8) External parasites 6.5 (1.7) 8.8 (2.6) i 16.9 (4.0) lice/mites Lameness/leg problems 3.2 (1.2) 4.4 (1.9) j 10.1 (3.2) Other 3.2 (1.2) 1.8 (1.2) j _0.0 Any of the above 25.'0 (2.8) 28.9 (4.3) j 46.6 (5.3) 28/Poultry 2010 i Section I:Results—B.Health and Health Care 2.Health care Overall, 1 of 10.flocks(9.9 percent)was seen by a veterinarian for any reason during the previous 12 months. a.Percentage of flocks in which a veterinarian looked at the chicken(s)for any reason during the previous 12 months,by city: Percent Flocks city Denver Los Angeles Miami New York All Std. Std. i Std. Std. Std. Pct. Error Pct. Error i Pct. Error Pct. Error Pct. Error 11.0 (2.5) 9.3 . (2.1) 9.1 (3.6) 9.1 (5.1) 1 9.9 (1.4) The percentage of flocks seen by a veterinarian did not differ substantially by flock size. b. Percentage of flocks in which a veterinarian looked at the chicken(s)for any reason during the previous 12 months,by flock size: Percent Flocks Flock Size(maximum number of chickens) Small (1-9) Medium (10-24) Large (25 or more) Percent Std.Error Percent Std. Error Percent Std.Error 6.9 (1.7) 9.9 (2.8) 16.9 (4.0) USDA APHIS VS/29 Section I:Results—B. Health and Health Care The percentage of flocks in which chickens received treatments,medications,or vaccines/shots during the previous 12 months ranged from 15.8 percent of flocks in Denver to 43.6 percent of flocks in Los Angeles. c. Percentage of flocks in which chicken(s)received treatments, medications,or vaccines/ shots during the previous 12 months,by city: Percent Flocks City Denver Los Angeles Miami New York All Std. Std. Std. Std. Std. Pct. Error Pct. Error Pct. Error Pct. Error ; Pct. Error 15.8 (3.1) 43.6 (3.5) 32.7 (6.1) 21.2 (7.2) 30.5 (2.1) The percentage of flocks that received treatments,medications,or vaccines/shots during the previous 12 months increased with flock size. d. Percentage of flocks in which chickens)received treatments,medications,or vaccines/ shots during the previous 12 months,by flock size: Percent Flocks Flock Size(maximum number of chickens) Small (1-9) Medium (10-24) Large(25 or more) Percent Std.Error Percent Std.Error Percent Std.Error 19.2 (2.7) 31.8 (4.4) 56.2 30/Poultry 2010 Section I:Results—B. Health and Health Care The percentage of flocks in which chickens received treatments,medications,or vaccines/shots during the previous 12 months ranged from 15.8 percent of flocks in Denver to 43.6 percent of flocks in Los Angeles. c. Percentage of flocks in which chicken(s)received treatments, medications,or vaccines/ shots during the previous 12 months,by city: Percent Flocks city Denver Los Angeles Miami New York All Std. Std. Std. Std. Std. Pct. Error Pct. Error Pct. Error Pct. Error Pct. Error 15.8 (3.1) 43.6 (3.5) 32.7 (6.1) 21.2 (7.2) 30.5 (2.1) The percentage of flocks that received treatments,medications,or vaccines/shots during the previous 12 months increased with flock size. 1' d. Percentage of flocks in which chicken(s)received treatments,medications,or vaccines/ shots during the previous 12 months,by flock size: Percent Flocks Flock Size(maximum number of chickens) Small(1-9) Medium (10-24) Large(25 or more) Percent Std.Error Percent Std.Error Percent Std.Error 19.2 (2.7) 31.8 (4.4) 56.2 (5.1). 30/Poultry 2010 i Section I:Results-B.Health and Health Care 3.Health resources Over one-half of flock owners considered other chicken owners,feed stores,and the Internet to be very important sources of chicken health information.Books were the most common"other'source of information.Poultry veterinarians might not be readily available in urban areas so,even if considered very important,they might not be accessible. a. Percentage of flocks by level of importance of the following sources of chicken health information: Percent Flocks Level of Importance Very Somewhat Not Important Important Important Source of Std. Std. ( Std. Information Pct. Error Pct. Error Pct. Error I Total Veterinarian 39.2 (2.2) 31.0 (2.2) 29.8 (2.1) 100.0 (private practitioner)_ � _ Extension service 27.8 (2.2) 33.7 (2.2) I 38.5 (2.3) i 100.0 Other chicken owners 52.5 (2.4) 25.9 (2.1) ! 21.6 (1.9) 100.0 i Feed store 59.0 (2.3) 25.5 (2.0) 15.5 (1.7) 100.0 Magazines/journals 44.7 (2.3) 28.5 (2.2) 26.8 (2.1) 100.0 Internet 55.8 (2.4) 24.6 (2.1) 19.6 (1.9) 100.0 j - Other 4.1 (0.9) 1.9 (0.7) I 94.0 (1.1) 100.0 USDA APHIS VS/31 Section I: Results-B. Health and Health Care Veterinarians were considered a very important source of chicken health information on 16.3 percent of flocks in Denver,56.0 percent in Los Angeles,43.6 percent in Miami,and 39.4 percent in New York City. Feed stores were considered a very important source of information on about two-thirds of flocks in Los Angeles and Miami;this finding might have been influenced by the fact that the study survey was conducted in feed stores. b.Percentage of flocks that ranked the following sources of chicken health information very important,by city: Percent Flocks city Los Denver Angeles Miami New York All Source of Std. Std. Std. Std. Std. Information Pct. Error Pct. Error Pct. Error Pct. Error Pct. Error Veterinarian (private 16.3 (3.0) 56.0 (3.5) 43.6 (6.8) 39.4 (8.6) Z 39.2 (2.2) practitioner) Extension service 18.5 (3.2) 36.4 (3.5) 21.8 (5.7) 30.3 (8.1) 127.8 (2.2) --� Other chicken 4 owners 59.3 (3.9) 50.0 (3.7) 36.4 (6.3) 63.6 (8.5) ! 52.5 (2.4) Feed store 49.7 (4.1) 69.0 (3.3) ' 61.8 (6.4)139.4 (8.6) 59.0 (2.3) Magazine/ 33.6 (4.0) 58.7 (3.5) 32.7 (6.0) WA (8.5) 144.7 (2.3) 'oumals Internet 59.2 (4.0) ( 53.8 (3.7) 45.5 (6.4) 69.7 (8.1) 55.8 (2.4) Other source 8.8 (2.3) 0.5 (0.5) ! 0.0 (--) 9.1 (5.1) 4.1 (0.9) As 32 I Poultry 2010 Section I:Results-B. Health and Health Care Veterinarians were considered a very important source of chicken health information on 16.3 percent of flocks in Denver,56.0 percent in Los Angeles,43.6 percent in Miami,and 39.4 percent in New York City. Feed stores were considered a very important source of information on about two-thirds of flocks in Los Angeles and Miami;this finding might have been influenced by the fact that the study survey was conducted in feed stores. b. Percentage of flocks that ranked the following sources of chicken health information very important,by city: Percent Flocks city Los Denver Angeles Miami New York All Source of Std: Std. Std. Std. Std. Information Pct. Error Pct. Error; Pct. Error Pct. Error Pct. Error Veterinarian i (private 16.3 (3.0) 56.0 (3.5) 43.6 (6.8) 39.4 (8.6) 39.2 (2.2) rap etitioner Extension service 18.5 (3.2) 36.4 (3.5) ; 21.8 (5.7) 30.3 (8.1) 27.8 (2.2) • Other chicken 59.3 (3.9) 50.0 (3.7) i 36.4 (6.3) 63.6 (8.5) 52.5 (2.4) owners Feed store 49.7 (4.1) 69.0 (3.3) i 61.8 (6.4) 39.4 (8.6) 59.0 (2.3) Maltazin s e/ 33.6 (4.0) 58.7 (3.5) i 32.7 (6.0) WA (8.5) 44.7 (2.3) iourni Internet 59.2 (4.0) 53.8 (3.1) ' 45.5 (6.4) 69.7 (8.1) 55.8 (2.4) Other source 8.8 (2.3) 0.5 (0.5) 0.0 (-) 9.1 (5.1) 4.1 (0.9) 32/Poultry 2010 Section I:Results—B.Health and Health Care Percentage of Flocks that Ranked the Following Sources of Chicken Health Information Very Important, by City Source of Information 16.3 Veterinarian y `4n 56.0 (private 43.6 practitioner) city 39.4 ■Denver 18.5 Los Angeles Extension :36.4 ®Miami service 21.8 30.3 New York Other 59.3 50.0 chicken owners 36.4 63.6 49.7 Feed x_. 69.0 ` store 61.8 39.4 Magazine/ 'M A 58.7 journals 32.7 36.4 59.2 Internet 53'8 45.5 69.7 0 20 40 60 80 Percent USDA APHIS VS/33 Section I:Results-B. Health and Health Care As expected,the percentages of flocks that ranked chicken health information sources very important did not differ substantially by flock size. c. Percentage of flocks that ranked the following sources of chicken health information very important, by flock size: Percent Flocks Flock Size(maximum number of chickens) Large Small 1-9 Medium 10-24 25 or more Std. Std. Std. Source of Information Pct. Error Pct. Error Pct. Error Veterinarian 31.9 (3.0) 46.5 (4.6) 47.2 (5.2) (private practitioner) Extension service 23.7 (2.9) 26.3 (4.1) 39.3 (5.2) I Other chicken owners 52.6 (3.3) 50.9 (4.7) 54.5 (5.2) Feed store 56.9 (3.3) 62.3 (4.6) ; 59.6 (5.0) Magazine/journals 38.1 (3.3) 52.6 - (4.6) 50.6 (5.2) Internet 61.1 (3.2) 48.2 (4.5) 52.8 (5.3) i Other source 6.5 (1.7) 1.8 (1.2) 1.1 (1.1) 34/Poultry 2010 Section I:Results-B. Health and Health Care As expected,the percentages of flocks that ranked chicken health information sources very important did not differ substantially by flock size. c. Percentage of flocks that ranked the following sources of chicken health information very important, by flock size: Percent Flocks Flock Size(maximum number of chickens) Large Small 1-9 Medium 10-24 25 or more Std. Std. Std. Source of Information Pct:. Error Pct. Error Pct. Error Veterinarian 31.9 (3.0) 46.5 (4.6) 47.2 (5.2) (privatepractitioner) Extension service 23.7 (2.9) 26.3 (4.1) 39.3 (5.2) Other chicken owners 52.6 (3.3) 50.9 (4.7) i 54.5 (5.2) • Feed store 56.9 (3.3) 62.3 (4.6) 59.6 (5.0) Magazineroumals 38.1 (3.3) 52.6 (4.6) 50.6 (5.2) Internet 61.1 (3.2) 48.2 (4.5) 52.8 (5.3) Other source 6.5 (1.7) 1.8 (1.2) ( 1.1 (1.1) 34/Poultry 2010 Section I: Results-C.Chicken Movement C. Chicken 1.Flock additions Movement More than two-thirds of flocks in Denver and New York City had acquired new chickens at least once during the previous 12 months.While nearly one-half of flocks in Miami (46.3 percent)had not acquired any new chickens during the previous 12 months,about one-fourth of Miami flocks(24.1 percent)had acquired new chickens three or more times. a. Percentage of flocks by number of times during the previous 12 months new chickens were acquired(not including those hatched on site),and by city: Percent Flocks City Los Denver Angeles Miami New York All Number Std. Std. Std. Std. Std. of Times Pct. Error Oct. Error Pct. Error Pct. Error Pct. Error 0 23.8 (3.5) 59.2 (3.4) 46.3 (6.2) 33.3 (8.3) 43.2 (2.2) 1 54.4 (4.2) 23.8 (3.0) 16.7 (4.8) 57.6 (8.7) 36.2 (2.2) 2 13.6 (2.9) 4.8 (1.6) 12.9 (4.5) 6.1 (4.2) . 9.0 (1.4) 3 or more 8.2 (2.3) 12.2 (2.4) 24.1 (5.9) 1 3.0 (3.0) 11.6 (1.5) Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 USDA APHIS VS/35 Section I:Results—C.Chicken Movement Percentage of Flocks by Number of Times During the Previous 12 Months New Chickens were Acquired(not Including Those Hatched on Site), and by City Percent 80 City Denver Los Angeles ®Miami 60 59.2 57.6 New York 54.4 46.3 40 33.3 23.8 23.8 24.1 20 16.7 13.0 12.9 12.2 6.1 8.2 ; 4.8 3.0 . 0 0 1 2 3 or more. Number of Times Photo courtesy Judy Rodriguez 36/Poultry 2010 I Section I:Results—C.Chicken Movement Percentage of Flocks by Number of Times During the Previous 12 Months New Chickens were Acquired(not Including Those Hatched on Site), and by City Percent 80 City ■Denver Los Angeles ■Miami 60 59.2 67.6 New York 54A 46.3 40 33.3 . 23.8 23.8 24.1 20 16.7 13.5 12,9 12.2 • 6.1 8.2 4.8 3.0 0 0 1 2 3 or more. Number of Tlmes Photo courtesy Judy Rodriguez 36/Poultry 2010 Section I:Results—C.Chicken Movement For flocks in which the family had chickens for less than 1 year,87.0 percent had acquired new chickens once during the previous 12 months.This finding probably reflects initial flock startups. In contrast,less than one-half of flocks in which the family had chickens for 1 year or longer had any acquisitions during the previous 12 months. �. c. Percentage of flocks by number of times during the previous 12 months new chickens were acquired(not including those hatched on site),and by number of years the family had been raising chickens: Percent Flocks Number of Years Chickens Raised Less than 1 1-4 5 or More Number of Times Pct. Std.Error Pct. Std.Error Pct. Std.Error 0 0.0 (—) 51.1 (4.2) 58.6 (3.6) • 1 87.0 (3.5) 27.0 (3.7) 18.9 (2.9) 2 8.7 (2.9) j 11.7 (2.7) i 77.77 (2.0) 3 or more 4.3 (2.1) 10.2 (2.6) it 14.8 (2.7) Total 100.0 100.0 i 100.0 38/Poultry 2010 Section I: Results—C. Chicken Movement About one-half of small flocks(50.2 percent)had acquired new chickens once during the previous 12 months. One-third of large flocks(33.7 percent)acquired new chickens three or more times. b.. Percentage of flocks by number of times during the previous 12 months new chickens were acquired (not including those hatched on site);and by flock size: Percent Flocks Flock Size(maximum number of chickens) Small (1-9) Medium(10-24) Large(25 or more) Number of Times Pct. Std. Error Pct. Std.Error Pct. Std. Error 0 39.7 (3.3) 48.7 (4.4) 44.9 (5.2) 1 50.2 (3.4) 27.0 (4.0) 13.5 (3.7) 2 6.9 (1.7) 13.9 (3.2) 7.9 (2.8) 3 or more 3.2 (1.2) 10.4 (2.9) 33.7 (5.0) Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 USDA APHIS VS 137 Section I:Results—C.Chicken Movement For flocks in which the family had chickens for less than 1 year,87.0 percent had acquired new chickens once during the previous 12 months.This finding probably reflects initial flock startups. In contrast, less than one-half of flocks in which the family had chickens for 1 year or longer had any acquisitions during the previous 12 months. c. Percentage of flocks by number of times during the previous 12 months new chickens were acquired(not including those hatched on site), and by number of years the family had been raising chickens: Percent Flocks Number of Years Chickens Raised Less than 1 1-4 5 or More Number of Times Pct. Std.Error Pct. Std.Error Pct. Std. Error 0 0.0 (—) 51.1 (4.2) 58.6 (3.6) 1 87.0 (3.5) 27.0 (3.7) 18.9 (2.9) 2 8.7 (2.9) j 11.7 (2.7) i 7.7 (2.0) 3 or more 4.3 (2.1) 10.2 (2.6) 41 8 (2.7) Total 100.0 100.0 i 100.0 38/Poultry 2010 Section I: Results-C. Chicken Movement For flocks that had acquired new chickens during the previous 12 months,about one4hird (35.4 percent)got them from a private individual;a similar percentage(34.5 percent)got their chickens from a feed or farm store. Mail order/intemet was a more common method of obtaining chickens in Denver than in Los Angeles(26.6 and 9.3 percent of flocks, respectively). Local hatcheries were a more common source in Los Angeles than in Denver(33.3 and 11.9 percent of flocks, respectively). d. For flocks that had acquired new chickens during the previous 12 months, percentage of flocks that acquired any new chickens from the following sources,by city: Percent Flocks city Los Denver Angeles Miami' New York' AIIZ Std. Std. Std. Std. I Std. Source Pct. Error Pct. Error .Pct. Errorl Pct. Error Local hatchery 11.9 (3.1) 33.3 (5.9) 18.9 (2.6) Local farm 23.9 (4.0) 25.9_(5.6) ! 26.7 (3.0) Private individual (e.g.,friend, 25.7 (4.3) 42.6 (6.5) 35.4 (3.3) neighbor) Fair or show 5.5 (2.2) ` 3.7 (2.5) 3.9 (1.3) Feed or farm store 33.0 (4.2) 55.6 (6.7) 34.5 (3.1) Mail order or Internet 26.6 (4.2) 9.3 (4.0) 18.4 (2.7) Poultry wholesaler 7.3 (2.5) 5.6 (3.2) 7.8 (1.9) or dealer Other 0.9 (0.9) 0.0 (=) 1.0 (0.7) Too few to report. 2Includes all four cities. USDA APHIS VS/39 Section I: Results—C.Chicken Movement Mail-order chicks were shipped more than 1,000 miles,on average. e.For flocks that had acquired new chickens during the previous 12 months,operation average distance(in miles)chickens traveled to arrive at the flock,by source: Operation Average Source Distance miles Std.Error Local hatchery 22 (8) Local farm 42 5 i Private individual(e.g.,friend, neighbor) 52 (23) Fair or show* Feed or farm store 15 (2) Mail order or Internet 1,104 (165) Poultry wholesaler or dealer* Other* *Too few to report. 2.Removal of chickens The percentage of flocks that sold or gave away live chickens ranged from 17.7 percent in Denver to 37.5 percent in Miami. a.Percentage of flocks that sold or gave away any live chickens during the previous 12 months,by city: Percent Flocks city Denver Los Angeles Miami New York All Std. Std. Std. Std. Std. Pct. Error Pct. Error ( Pct. Error Pct. Error Pct. Error i 17.7 (3.2) 26.7 (3.2) 37.5 (6.5) 18.2 (6.8) 24.3 (2.1) 40/Poultry 2010 Section I:Results—C.Chicken Movement Mail-order chicks were shipped more than 1,000 miles,on average. e.For flocks that had acquired new chickens during the previous 12 months,operation average distance(in miles)chickens traveled to arrive at the flock,by source: Operation Average Source Distance(miles) Std.Error Local hatchery 22 (8) Local farm 42 (5) Private individual(e.g.,friend,neighbor) 52 (23) Fair or show* Feed or farm store 15 (2) Mail order or Internet 1,104 (165) Poultry wholesaler or dealer* • Other* 'Too few to report. 2.Removal of chickens The percentage of flocks that sold or gave away live chickens ranged from 17.7 percent in Denver to 37.5 percent in Miami. a.Percentage of flocks that sold or gave away any live chickens during the previous 12 months,by city: Percent Flocks City Denver Los Angeles Miami New York All Std. Std. Std. Std. I Std. Pct. Error Pct. Error Pct. Error Pct. Error Pct. Error 17.7 (3.2) 26.7 (3.2) 37.5 (6.5) 18.2 (6.8) 24.3 (2.1) 40/Poultry 2010 Section I: Results-C. Chicken Movement The percentage of flocks that sold or gave away live chickens increased with flock size. b. Percentage of flocks that sold or gave away any live chickens during the previous 12 months,by flock size: Percent Flocks Flock Size(maximum number of chickens) Small (1-9) Medium(10-24) Large (25 or more) Percent Std. Error Percent Std. Error Percent Std.Error 8.7 (1.9) 29.8 (4.2) 54.9 (5.3) Overall, a private individual was the most common destination of chickens sold or given away(76.9 percent of flocks). In Los Angeles,24.4 percent of flocks that sold or gave away chickens sent them to a poultry wholesaler or dealer and 33.3 percent sent them to a feed or farm store. In Denver,only 3.8 percent of flocks sold or gave away chickens using a feed or farm store. Examples of`other"destinations included Internet sales and birds being confiscated. c.For flocks that sold or gave away live chickens during the previous 12 months, percentage of flocks by destination of chickens and by city: Percent Flocks City Los Denver Angeles Miami' New York' All2 Std. Std. Std. Std. Std. Destination Pct. Error Pct. Errorl Pct. Error Pct. Error Pct. Error Live-bird market3 11.5 (6.3) 22.2 (5.9) 17.6 (3.9) Private individual (e.g.,friend, 88.5 (6.3) 64.4 (7.1) 76.9 (4.4) neighbor) Poultry wholesaler 0.0 (-) 24.4 (6.1) 12.1 (3.2) or dealer Fair or show 11.5 (6.1) ' 11.1 (4.6) 9.9 (3.1) Feed or farm store 3.8 (3.8) 33.3 (6.9) 20.9 (4.2) Other 11.5 (6.3) 2.2 (2.2) 5.5 (2.4) Too few to report. 2Includes all four cities. 3Respondents might have interpreted live-bird markets to include bird swaps. USDA APHIS VS 141 Section I:Results—C.Chicken Movement For live chickens sold or given away to a private individual,the average distance chickens traveled was 20 miles. d. For flocks that sold or gave away live chickens during the previous 12 months, operation average distance chickens traveled(in miles)to get to destination,by destination: Operation Average Destination Distance miles Std. Error Live-bird market 6 (2) Private individual (e.g.,friend, neighbor) 20 (5) Poultry wholesaler or dealer* Fair or show* Feed or farm store 9 (7) Other* *Too few to report. 3.Other locations with birds Only 6.9 percent of flock owners took chickens to a location such as a fair or show where other birds were present and then returned the chickens to their flocks. a. Percentage of flocks that took chickens to a location such as a fair or show where other birds were present and then returned the chickens to the flock during the previous 12 months,by city: Percent Flocks city Denver Los Angeles Miami New York All Std. Std. Std. Std. Std. Pct. Error Pct. Error Pct. Error Pct. Error Pct. Error 7.9 (1.8) 5.7 (1.8) 12.8 (4.6) 0.0 (—) 6.9 (1.2) 42/Poultry 2010 Section I:Results—C.Chicken Movement For live chickens sold or given away to a private individual,the average distance chickens traveled was 20 miles. d.For flocks that sold or gave away live chickens during the previous 12 months, operation average distance chickens traveled(in miles)to get to destination,by destination: Operation Average Destination Distance miles Std.Error Live-bird market 6 (2) Private individual(e.g.,friend,neighbor) 20 (5) Poultry wholesaler or dealer* Fair or show* Feed or farm store 9 (7) Other* • 'Too few to report. 3.Other locations with birds Only 6.9 percent of flock owners took chickens to a location such as a fair or show where other birds were present and then returned the chickens to their flocks. a. Percentage of flocks that took chickens to a location such as a fair or show where other birds were present and then returned the chickens to the flock during the previous 12 months,by city: Percent Flocks city Denver Los Angeles Miami New York All Std. Std. Std. Std. Std. Pct. Error I Pct. Error Pct. Error Pct. Error Pct. Error 7.9 (1.8) 5.7 (1.8) 12.8 (4.6) 0.0 (—) 6.9 (1.2) 42 1 Poultry 2010 Section I:Results—C.Chicken Movement The percentage of flocks that sold or gave away eggs was similar across size groups. b.Percentage of flocks that sold or gave away any hatching or table eggs during the previous 12 months,by flock size: Percent Flocks Flock Size(maximum number of chickens) Small(1-9) Medium(10-24) Large(25 or more) Percent Std.Error Percent Std.Error 11 Percent Std.Error 30.7 (2.9) 37.4 (4.6) 37.2 (5.1) 44!Poultry 2010. Section I:Results—C. Chicken Movement The percentage of flock owners that took chickens to a location such as a fair or show where other birds were present ranged from 2.4 percent of small flocks to 12.5 percent of large flocks. b. Percentage of flocks that took chickens to a location such as a fair or show where other birds were present and then returned the chickens to the flock during the previous 12 months,by flock size: Percent Flocks Flock Size(maximum number of chickens) Small (1-9) Medium (10-24) Large(25 or more) Percent Std.Error Percent Std.Error Percent Std.Error i 2.4 (1.0) 11.2 (3.0) 12.5 (3.6) 4.Egg movement About 2 of 10 flocks in Los Angeles and Miami sold or gave away eggs compared with about 5 of 10 flocks in Denver and 7 of 10 flocks in New York City. a. Percentage of flocks that sold or gave away any hatching or table eggs during the previous 12 months,by city: Percent Flocks City Denver Los Angeles Miami New York All Std. Std. Std. Std. Std. Pct. Error Pct. Error Pct. Error Pct. Error Pct. Error 49.3 (4.2) 18.4 (2.9) 20.0 (5.5) 71.9 (8.1) 33.8 (2.2) USDA APHIS VS/43 Section I:Results—C.Chicken Movement The percentage of flocks that sold or gave away eggs was similar across size groups. b. Percentage of flocks that sold or gave away any hatching or table eggs during the previous 12 months,by flock size: Percent Flocks Flock Size(maximum number of chickens) Small (1-9) Medium (10-24) Large(25 or more) Percent Std.Error Percent Std.Error j Percent Std. Error 30.7 (2.9) 37.4 (4.6) 37.2 (5.1) 441 Poultry 2010. Section I: Results-D.BiosecuHty D.Biosecurity 1.Biosecurity practices About one-half of flocks(45.7 percent)always required hand washing before handling chickens and about three-fourths(77.1 percent)always required hand washing after handling chickens.About two-thirds of the practices listed below were never required. a.Percentage of flocks by frequency that the following practices were required for people (including family)entering the chicken area: Percent Flocks Frequency Always Sometimes Never Std. Std. Std. Practice Pct. Error Pct. Error Pct. Error Total Use of footbath 13.3 (1.6) 14.0 (1.6) 72.7 (2.0) 100.0 before entry Scrub boots/shoes 17.2 (1.8) 12.6 (1.5) 70.2 (2.1) 100.0 before entry Wear shoe.-covers, wear dedicated shoes, 20.5 (1.9) 19.5 (1.9) 60.0 (2.3) 100.0 or change shoes Wear dedicated clothing or change 10.7 (1.4) 22.6 (2.0) 66.7 (2.2) 100.0 clothing before enterin Wash hands before 45.7 (2.3) 20.0 (1.9) 34.3 (2.2) 100.0 handling chickens Wash hands after 77.1 (1.9) 11.2 (1.5) i 11.7 (1.5) 100.0 handling chickens • USDA APHIS VS/45 Section I: Results-D. Biosecurity Over 30 percent of flocks in Los Angeles and Miami always or sometimes required people entering the chicken area to use footbaths,scrub boots/shoes,wear shoe covers,wear dedicated clothing or change clothes,and/or wash hands. b. Percentage of flocks that always or sometimes required the following practices for people(including family)entering the chicken area, by city: Percent Flocks city Los Denver Angeles Miami New York All Std. Std. I Std. Std. Std. Practice Pct. Error Pct. Error Pct. Error Pct. Error Pct. Error Use of footbath 11.6 (2.7) 43.3 (3.4) 30.4 (6.3) 0.0 before entry (-) 27.3 (2.0) Scrub boots/shoes 14.4 (2.9) 43.0 (3.5) 39.3 (6.8) 6.3 (4.3) 29.8 (2.1) before entry Wear shoe covers,wear 04 6 35. . . .7 6.2 . 7.4 . . dedicated shoes, ( ) 478 (3.6) � 35 ( ) 219 ( ) 400 (2.3) or change shoes Any footwear 40.4 (4.1) 65.2 (3.3) 51.8 (6.8) 21.9 (7.4) 51.5 (2.3) requirement Wear dedicated clothing or 25.3 (3.6) 43.5 (3.6) 133.9 (6.1) 9.4 (5.2) 33.3 (2.2) change clothing before entering _ Wash hands before handling 63.0 (3.9) 71.5 (3.2) 169.6 (5.9) ! 37.5 (8.7) 65.7 (2.2) chickens Wash hands a s after 93.8 2.0 � 85.5 2.3 ; 82.1 4.8 90.6 5.2 88.3 1.5 handlingchickens ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) 46/Poultry 2010 Section I: Results-D. Biosecurity Over 30 percent of flocks in Los Angeles and Miami always or sometimes required people entering the chicken area to use footbaths,scrub boots/shoes,wear shoe covers,wear dedicated clothing or change clothes,and/or wash hands. b. Percentage of flocks that always or sometimes required the following practices for people(including family)entering the chicken area, by city: Percent Flocks city Los Denver Angeles Miami New York All Std. Std. Std. Std. Std. Practice Pct. Error Pct. Error Pct. Error Pct. Error Pct. Error Use of footbath 11.6 (2.7) 43.3 (3.4). 30.4 (6.3) 0.0 (-) 27.3 2 0 before entry ( ) Scrub boots/shoes 14.4 (2.9) 43.0 (3.5) 39.3 (6.8) 6.3 (4.3) 29.8 (2.1) before entry Wear shoe I covers,wear 35.6 4.0 47.8 3.6 35.7 . dedicated shoes, ( ) ( ) (6.2) 21.9 (7.4) 40.0 (2.3) or change shoes Any footwear 4 40.4 .1 requirement ( ) 65.2 (3.3) 51.8 (6.8) 21.9 (7.4) 51.5 (2.3) Wear dedicated clothing or 25.3 (3.6) 43.5 (3.6) 1 33.9 (6.1) 9.4 (5.2) 33.3 2 2 change clothing I ( ) before entering Wash hands before handling 63.0 (3.9) 71.5 (3.2) 169.6 (5.9) 37.5 (8.7) 65.7 (2.2) chickens Wash hands after ! handling chickens 93.8 (2.0) 85.5 (2.3) 1 82.1 (4.8) 90.6 (5.2) 88.3 (1.5) 461 Poultry 2010 i Section I:Results—D.Biosecurity Percentage of Flocks that Always or Sometimes Required the Following Practices for People(including Family)Entering the Chicken Area,by City Practice LkIIUse of footbath 43.3 before entry 30.4 City 14.4 .Denver Scrub -_ :' 43.0 Los Angeles boots/shoes 39.3 before entry .Miami 6.3 ®New York Wear shoe 35.6 covers,.wear 47.8 dedicated shoes, 35.7 or change shoes 21.9 40.4 Any footwear NIMBI " _. 65.2 requirement. 51.8 21.9 Wear dedicated 25.3 clothing or change 43.5 clothing before 33.9 entering 19.4 Wash hands 63.0 before handling 71.5 chickens 69.6 37.5 93.8 Wash hands after 85.5 handling chickens 82,1 90.6 0 20 40 60 80 100 Percent USDA APHIS VS/47 Section I: Results-D. Biosecurity A higher percentage of large flocks than small flocks had footwear requirements.Over 30 percent of medium and large flocks required each of the biosecurity practices listed below. c. Percentage of flocks that always or sometimes required the following practices for people(including family)entering the chicken area, by flock size: Percent Flocks Flock Size(maximum number of chickens) Large Small 1-9 Medium 10-24 25 or more Std. Std. Std. Practice Pct. Error Pct. Error Pct. Error Use of footbath 21.2 (2.6) 31.3 (4.2) 37.1 (5.1) before entry Scrub boots/shoes 24.0 (2.8) 35.7 (4.5) 36.4 (5.1) before entry Wear shoe covers,wear dedicated shoes,or 35.9 (3.2) 43.5 (4.6) 45.5 (5.3) change shoes _ Any footwear requirement 44.7 (3.3) 55.7 (4.6) 62.9 (5.0) Wear dedicated clothing or change clothing 27.2 (3.0) 42.6 (4.5) 36.4 (5.2) before entering Wash hands before 64.1 (3.2) 70.4 (4.2) 63.6 (5.1) handling chickens Wash hands after 87.6 (2.1) 90.4 (2.7) F 87.5 (3.4) handling chickens 48/Poultry 2010 Section I: Results-D.Biosecurity A higher percentage of large flocks.than small flocks had footwear requirements.Over 30 percent of medium and large flocks required each of the biosecurity practices listed below. c. Percentage of flocks that always or sometimes required the following practices for people(including family)entering the chicken area, by flock size: Percent Flocks Flock Size(maximum number of chickens) Large Small 1-9 Medium 10-24 25 or more Std. Std. Std. Practice Pet. Error Pct. Error Pct. Error Use of footbath 21.2 (2.6) 31.3 (4.2) 37.1 (5.1) before entry _ Scrub boots/shoes 24.0 (2.8) 35.7 (4.5) 36A (5.1) before entry Wear shoe covers,wear • dedicated shoes,or 35.9 (3.2) -43.5 (4.6) 45.5 (5.3) change shoes Any footwear requirement 44.7 (3.3) 55.7 (4.6) 62.9 (5.0) Wear dedicated clothing or change clothing 27.2 (3.0) 42.6 (4.5) 36.4 (5.2) before entering Wash hands before 64.1 (3.2) 70.4 (4.2) 63.6 (5.1) handling chickens Wash hands after -F g7.6 (2.1) 90.4 (2.7) 87.5 (3.4) handlingchickens 48 1 Poultry 2010 1 ; 11 s 1�%� siZ �-A��,"�E�'� �,�•.+ MM .`it z��f �! 1 ,`S�i �' it��a��`I�i � �� .1 i fi� e:ct1,� '�'PS'�P}�.� �'`��.T,'t•�. ��`+�`�� "S Y' � :.�,• � >s u"1 *i � 1 �sr`e. � ��,gsFy' � �y+Asaty''``✓c�E# s 1 I - MUM + k-yx ti. .k Y b ,F U.y }Ps 4 s� 1 1 �• 1 1 Section I: Results-D.Biosecurity 2.Visitors The majority of flocks(85.9 percent)had no business visitors enter the chicken area during the previous 12 months.About one-half of flocks had nonbusiness visitors enter the chicken area,with 22.9 percent having 10 or more occurrences.About 4 of 10 flocks in Denver and 6 of 10 flocks in New York City had nonbusiness visitors enter the chicken area 10 or more times. a. Percentage of flocks by number of times the following types of visitors entered the chicken area during the previous 12 months,and by city: Percent Flocks City Los Denver Angeles Miami New York All Number Std. Std. Std. Std. j Std. of Times Pct. Error Pct. Error Pct. Error Pct. Error I Pct. Error � y 0 89.1 (2.7) 85.6 (2.6) 84.0 (5.2) 75.9 (8.1) 85.9 (1.7) 1 to 9 8.0 (2.3) 11.1 (2.3) 10.0 (3.9) 17.2 (7.1) 10.3 (1.5) 10 or more 2.9 (1.4) 3.3 (1.3) 6.0 (3.3) . 6.9 (4.8) 3.8 (1.0) Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 • T 0 30.9 (3.8) .72.3 (3.2) 68.1 (6.9) 9.4 (5.2) 52.5 (2.2) 1 to 9 29.5 (3.9) 20.6 (3.0) 21.3 (6.1) ( 31.2 (8.3) 24.6 (2.1) 10 or more 39.6 (4.1) 7.1 (1.9) 10.6 (4.7) 59.4 (8.8) 22.9 (1.9) Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 1100.0 100.0 Veterinarian,extension agent,customers purchasing chicken products,bind dealer/buyer,meter reader,other service person,etc. ZSchool groups,friends,neighbors,etc. USDA APHIS VS/49 1 £ -Y•�rtT .y ��' -f 4 Y 3 1 BOB-. 1s� � fF,-, r w �* .�arA .1 rgha a v F 1 Section I: Results-D.Biosecurity The percentage of flocks in which business visitors entered the chicken area 10 or more times during the previous 12 months ranged from 0.5 percent of small flocks to 12.6 percent of large flocks.The percentage of flocks in which nonbusiness visitors entered the chicken area 10 or more times ranged from 27.8 percent of small flocks to 10.9 percent of large flocks. b. Percentage of flocks by number of times the following types of visitors entered the chicken area during the previous 12 months,and by flock size: Percent Flocks Flock Size(maximum number of chickens) Large Small 1-9 Medium 10-24 25 or more Number of Times Pct. Std. Error Pct. Std. Error; Pct. Std.Error 0 _-_ 93.0 (1.8) 85.5 (3.4) 70.1 (4.9) 1 to 9 6.5 (1.7) 11.8 (3.1) j 17.3 (4.0) 10 or more 0.5 (0.5) 2.7 (1.6) i 12.6 (3.6) Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 0 47.8 (3.1) 59.1 (4.6) j 55.4 (5.4) 1 to 9 24.4 (2.9) 18.2 (3.7) 33.7 (5.2) 10 or more 27.8 (2.9) 22.7 (3.9) 10.9 (3.4) Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 Veterinarian,extension agent,customers purchasing chicken products,bird dealer/buyer,meter reader,other service person,etc. 2School groups,friends,neighbors,etc. USDA APHIS VS/51 Section I:Results—E. Slaughter and Death Loss E. Slaughter and 1.Chickens slaughtered for human consumption Death Loss Very few flocks(8.0 percent)slaughtered chickens for human consumption. a. Percentage of flocks in which any chickens were slaughtered or sold for human consumption during the previous 12 months,by city: Percent Flocks City Denver Los Angeles Miami New York All Std. Std. Std. I Std. ; Std. Pct. Error Pct. Error Pct. Error Pct. Error Pct. Error 10.2 (2.4) 6.3 (1.8) 10.9 (4.1) 3.1 (3.1) 8.0 (1.3) The percentage of flocks that slaughtered chickens for human consumption increased with flock size. b. Percentage of flocks in which any chickens were slaughtered or sold for human consumption during the previous 12 months,by flock size: Percent Flocks Flock Size(maximum number of chickens) Small (1-9) Medium(10-24) Large (25 or more) Percent Std.Error Percent Std. Error Percent Std.Error 2.7 (1.1) 7.0 (2.4) 22.5 (4.3) 52 I Poultry 2010 Section I:Results—E. Slaughter and Death Loss E.Slaughter and 1.Chickens slaughtered for human consumption Death Loss Very few flocks(8.0 percent)slaughtered chickens for human consumption. a.Percentage of flocks in which any chickens were slaughtered or sold for human consumption during the previous 12 months,by city: Percent Flocks City Denver Los Angeles Miami New York All Std. Std. Std. Std. Std. Pct. Error Pct. Error Pct. Error Pct. Error 1 Pct. Error 10.2 (2.4) 6.3 (1.8) 10.9 (4.1) 3.1 (3.1) 8.0 (1.3) The percentage of flocks that slaughtered chickens for human consumption increased with flock size. • b.Percentage of flocks in which any chickens were slaughtered or sold for human consumption during the previous 12 months,by flock size: Percent Flocks Flock Size(maximum number of chickens) Small(1-9) Medium(10-24) Large(25 or more) Percent Std.Error Percent Std. Error ( Percent . Std.Error i 2.7 (1,1) 7.0 (2.4) 22.5 (4.3) 52/Poultry 2010 Section I: Results—E. Slaughter and Death Loss Home slaughter was the most common method of slaughtering chickens for human consumption. c. For flocks in which any chickens were slaughtered for human consumption, percentage of flocks by method of slaughter: Method Percent Flocks Std. Error Home slaughter 67.8 (7.7) Mobile slaughter facility 0.0 (--) Chickens transported to 29.0 (7.8) a slaughter facility Other 3.2 (3.2) 2.Mortality Overall,29.3 percent of flocks had at least one chicken death during the previous 12 months, ranging from 17.2 percent of flocks in Los Angeles to 49.1 percent of flocks in Miami. a.Percentage of flocks in which any chickens died*during the previous 12 months,by city: Percent Flocks City Denver Los Angeles Miami New York All Std. Std. Std. Std. ! Std. Pct. Error Pct. Error Pct. Error Pct. Error Pct. Error 37.4 (4.0) 17.2 (2.7) 49.1 (6.2) 28.1 (8.1) 29.3 (2.1) *Includes chickens euthanized(put down),but excludes chickens slaughtered for human consumption. USDA APHIS VS/53 Section I:Results—E.Slaughter and Death Loss The percentage of flocks with at least one chicken death during the previous 12 months increased with flock size, most likely because larger flocks had more birds available to die. * f flocks in which an chickens died during the previous 12 months, b b.Percentage o y g P Y flock size: Percent Flocks Flock Size(maximum number of chickens) Small (1=9) Medium (10-24) Large(25 or more) Percent Std.Error Percent Std.Error Percent Std.Error 21.2 (2.8) 30.7 (4.2) I 47.2 (5.1) Includes chickens euthanized(put down),but excludes chickens slaughtered for human consumption. Overall,6.4 percent of chickens died during the previous 12 months.The percentage of chickens that died was similar across cities. c. Number of chickens that died*during the previous 12 months,as a percentage of maximum chicken inventory during the previous 12 months, by city: Percent Chickens City Denver Los Angeles Miami New York All Std. Std. Std. Std. I Std. Pct. Error Pct. Error i Pct. Error Pct. Error ! Pct. Error 10.8 (1.8) .4 4.4 (1.5) 6.2 (1.9) 5.5 (1.4) j . 6.4 (1.0) Includes chickens euthanized(put down),but excludes chickens slaughtered for human consumption. 54/Poultry 2010 Section I:Results—E.Slaughter and Death Loss The percentage of flocks with at least one chicken death during the previous 12 months increased with flock size,most likely because larger flocks had more birds available to die. b.Percentage of flocks in which any chickens died*during the previous 12 months,by flock size: Percent Flocks Flock Size(maximum number of chickens) Small (1=9) Medium(10-24) Large(25 or more) Percent Std.Error Percent Std.Error Percent Std.Error 21.2 (2.8) 30.7 (4.2) 47.2 (5.1) Includes chickens euthanized(put down),but excludes chickens slaughtered for human consumption. Overall,6.4 percent of chickens died during the previous 12 months.The percentage of • chickens that died was similar across cities. c. Number of chickens that died*during the previous 12 months,as a percentage of maximum chicken inventory during the previous 12 months,by city: Percent Chickens City Denver Los Angeles Miami New York All Std. Std. Std. Std. k Std. Pct. Error Pct. Error i Pct. Error Pct. Error Pct. Error 10.8 (1.8) 4.4 (1.5) 6.2 (1.9) 5.5 (1.4) 6.4 (1.0) Includes chickens euthanized(put down),but excludes chickens slaughtered for human consumption. t 54/Poultry 2010 Section I:Results-E. Slaughter and Death Loss, Although large flocks were more likely than small flocks to have at least one chicken death(see table b.,p 54),the percentage of chickens that died in large flocks was not higher than the percentage that died in small flocks. d. Number of chickens that died*during the previous 12 months,as a percentage of maximum chicken inventory during the previous 12 months, by flock size: Percent Chickens Flock Size(maximum number of chickens) Small{(1-9) Medium (10-24) Large(25 or more) Percent Std.Error Percent Std. Error Percent Std.Error 9.0 (1.7) 8.0 (1.6) 5.5 (1.3) *Includes chickens euthanized(put down),but excludes chickens slaughtered for human consumption. Predators accounted for the highest percentage of chicken deaths(44.0 percent).Old age and unknown causes each accounted for 13.1 percent of deaths. e. For chickens that died' during the previous 12 months, percentage of chicken deaths by cause of death(as reported by owner)and by city: Percent Deaths City Los Denver Angeles Miami New YorV All Std. Std. I Std. i . Std. Sid. Cause of Death Pct. Error Pct. Error Pct. Error; Pct. Error Pct. Error Predators 60.1 (6.5) 50.0 (15.9)11 21.0 (6.3) 44.0 (6.5). Illness/disease 19.7 (5.9) 10.1 (5.7)1 18.2 (13.2) 16.5 (5.1) Injury 2.4 (1.3) 4.2 .(2.4)I 11.9 (4.6) 6.0 (2.0) Old.age 4.8 (2.1) 23.2 (9.4) 14.2 (6.0) 13.1 (3.3) Other known cause 6.3 (4.0) 7.1 (6.1) 8.5 (8.3) 7.3 (3.5) Unknown cause 6.7 (2.8) 5.4 (2.8) 26.2 (8.2) 13.1 (3.6) Total 100.0 100.0 ;100.0 100.0 Includes chickens euthanized(put down),but excludes chickens slaughtered for human consumption. 2Too few to report. USDA APHIS VS/55 Section I:Results-E. Slaughter and Death Loss Cause of death did not differ substantially by flock size.Standard errors in the following table are large due to the small number of deaths represented in the sample. f. For chickens that died*during the previous 12 morths,percentage of chicken deaths by cause of death(as reported by owner)and by flock size: Percent Deaths Flock Size(maximum number of chickens) Large Small 1-9 Medium 10-24 25 or more Std. j Std. Std. Cause of Death Pct. Error '' Pct. Error Pct. Error Predators 46.1 (7.3) ` 60.7 (7.7) 36.8 (10.6) Illness/disease 22.5 (5.5) ! 8.9 (3.1) 17.9 (8.3) Injury 4.5 (2.7) ! 3.0 (1.6) 7.7 (3.2) Old age J _ 10.1__ (4.1) 12.6 (4.3)_ _ 14.1 ^ (5.1) Other known cause _ 6.7 (4.2) 1.5 (1.1) 9.7 (5.7) Unknown cause 10.1 (4.6) 13.3 (5.9) 13.8 (5.6) Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 *Includes chickens euthanized(put down),but excludes chickens slaughtered for human consumption. Photo'courtesy Judy Rodriguez 56/Poultry 2010 Section I:Results-E.Slaughter and Death Loss Cause of death did not differ substantially by flock size.Standard errors in the following table are large due to the small number of deaths represented in the sample. f. For chickens that died*during the previous 12 months,percentage of chicken deaths by cause of death(as reported by owner)and by flock size: Percent Deaths Flock Size(maximum number of chickens) Large Small 1-9 Medium 10-24 25 or more Std. Std. Std. Cause of Death Pct. Error Pct. Error Pct. Error Predators 46.1 (7.3) 60.7 (7.7) 36.8 (10.6) Illness/disease 22.5 (5.5) 8.9 (3.1) 17.9 (8.3) Injury 4.5 (2.7) 3.0 (1.6) 7.7 (3.2) Old age 10.1 (4.1) 12.6 (4.3) 14.1 (5.1) • Other known cause 6.7 (4.2) 1.5 (1.1) 9.7 (5.7) Unknown cause 10.1 (4.6) 13.3 (5.9) 13.8 (5.6) Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 'Includes chickens euthanized(put down),but excludes chickens slaughtered for human consumption. Photo courtesy Judy Rodriguez 56/Poultry 2010 Section 1:Results—E. Slaughter and Death Loss 3.Carcass disposal For flocks in which any chickens died,the most common primary methods of carcass disposal were landfill/trash(30.9 percent of flocks), buried on premises(23.6 percent), and taken by predator(21.1 percent). For flocks on which any chickens died*during the previous 12 months, percentage of flocks by primary method of disposing of dead chickens: Method i Percent Flocks Std.Error Predator took carcass(no disposal) ( 21.1 (3.7) Incinerated(burned) 10.6 (2.7) Buried on premises 23.6 (3.8) Renderer picked up 2.4 (1.4) Carcass taken to renderer 0.8 (0.8) Composted _ 4.1_ (1.8) Taken to a landfill or put in trash I 30.9 (4.2) Fed to other animals or left for scavengers- --- 1.6 Other disposal method 4.9 (2.0) Total 100.0 *Includes chickens euthanized(put down),but excludes chickens slaughtered for human consumption. USDA APHIS VS/57 Section I: Results-F.Characteristics of Urban Chicken Owners F. Characteristics 1,Reasons for having chickens of Urban Chicken Income was reported as the least important reason for having chickens,with three-fourth Owners of flocks(74.2 percent)rating it a 1 (not important)on a scale of 1 to 5. Only 6.0 percent of flocks rated income as extremely important(score=5).Over one-third of flocks rated fun/hobby,food source,food quality,animal welfare concerns,and environmental concerns as extremely important reasons for having chickens.A learning experience for kids and family tradition were extremely important reasons for having chickens in 3 of 10 flocks.The most common'other"reason for having chickens was for pets/companionship. a. Percentage of flocks by level of importance of the following reasons for having chickens: Percent Flocks Level of Importance 1 5 (not 2 3 4 (extremely important) - Important) Std. Std. Std. Std. I Std. Reason Pct. Error Pct. Error Pct. Error Pct. Error Pct. Error Total Family tradition 32.3 (2.1) 8.9 (1.4) 120.7 (2.0) 8.9 (1.4) 29.2 (2.1) 100.0 Fun/hobby 11.1 (1.5) 5.5 (1.1) 21.2 (2.0) 22.9 (2.0) 39.3 (2.3) 100.0 Income 74.2 (2.1) 7.7 (1.3) 10.1 (1.5) 2.0 (0.7) 6.0 (1.1) 100.0 Food source(es, meat) 25.2 (1.9) 6.5 (1.2) 16.9 (1.8) 14.8 (1.7) 36.6 (2.2) 100.0 -- - ---- --------- ------ Food quality(e.g., 25.6 (2.0) 7.0 (1.3) 11.3 (1.6) 15.0 (1.7) 141.1 (2.2) 100.0 freshness, health Concerns about 25.1 (2.1) 6.8 (1.2) 17.9 (1.9) 14.7 (1.7) 35.5 (2.3) 100.0 animal welfare Concerns about the environment 26.2 (2.2) 6.8 (1_2) 19.4 (2.0) ; 13.6 (1.7) ' 34.0 (2.3) 100.0 Social interactions 47.8 (2.4) 12.1 (1.6) 16.9 (1.8) 10.6 (1.5)) 112.66 (1.6) 100.0 e. .,4-H, clubs Learning experience for 27.3 (2.2) 6.0 (1.2) 116.9 (1.8) 17.9 (1.9) i 31.9 (2.3) 100.0 kids Other 90.4 (1.4) 0.2 (0.2) ' 1.2 (0.5) 1.7 (0.6)1 6.5 (1.2) 100.0 58/Poultry 2010 Section I:Results-F.Characteristics of Urban Chicken Owners F. Characteristics 1,Reasons for having chickens of Urban Chicken Income was reported as the least important reason for having chickens,with three-fourth Owners of flocks(74.2 percent)rating it.a 1 (not important)on a scale of 1 to 5. Only 6.0 percent of flocks rated income as extremely important(score=5).Over one-third of flocks rated fun/hobby,food source,food quality,animal welfare concerns,and environmental concerns as extremely important reasons for having chickens.A leaming experience for kids and family tradition were extremely important.reasons for having chickens in 3 of 10 flocks.The most common"other"reason for having chickens was for pets/companionship. a. Percentage of flocks by level of importance of the following reasons for having chickens: Percent Flocks Level of Importance 1 5 (not 2 3 4 (extremely important) - Important) • Std. Std. Std. Std. I Std. Reason ( Pct. Error Pct. Error Pct. Error Pct. Error Pct. Error Total Family tradition 32.3 (2.1) 8.9 (1.4) 120.7 (2.0) 8.9 (1.4) 29.2 (2.1) 100.0 Fun/hobby 11.1 (1.5) 5.5 (1.1) 21.2 (2.0) 22.9 (2.0) 39.3 (2.3) 100.0 Income 74.2 (2.1) 7.7 (1.3) 10.1 (1.5) 2.0 (0.7) 6.0 . (1.1) 100.0 Food source es,meat 25.2 (1.9) 6.5 (1.2) 16.9 (1.8) 14.8 (1.7) 36.6 (2.2) 100.0 Food quality(e.g., 25.6 (2.0) 7.0 (1.3) 11.3 (1.6) 15.0 (1.7) ' 41.1 (2.2) 100.0 freshness,health Concerns about 25.1 (2.1) 6.8 (1.2) 17.9 (1.9) 14.7 (1.7) 35.5 (2.3) 100.0 animal welfare Concerns about 26.2 (2.2) 6.8 (1.2) 19.4 (2.0) , 13.6 (1.7) 34.0 (2.3) 100.0 the environment Social interactions 47.8 (2.4) 12.1 (1.6) l 16.9 (1.8) 10.6 (1.5) 12.6 (1.6) 100.0 e. .,4-H,clubs Learning experience for 27.3 (2.2) 6.0 (1.2) 116.9 (1.8) 17.9 (1.9) 31.9 (2.3) 100.0 kids I Other 90.4 (1.4) 0.2 (0.2) 1.2 (0.5) 1.7 (0.6) 6.5 (1.2) 1100.0 • i 58/Poultry 2010 Section I:Results-F. Characteristics of.Urban Chicken Owners About one-half of flocks in Los Angeles and Miami ranked family tradition as a very or extremely important reason to have chickens,compared with about one-fifth of flocks in Denver and New York City. Food source and food quality ranked higher in Denver and New York City compared with Los Angeles and Miami. Nearly all flocks in New York City (93.5 percent)ranked fun/hobby as very or extremely important. b. Percentage'of flocks that rated the following reasons for having chickens as very or extremely important(Score=4 or 5 on a scale of 1 to 5),by city: Percent Flocks City Los Denver Angeles Miami New York All Std. Std. Std. Std. Std. Reason Pct. Error Pct. Error I Pct. Error Pct. Error Pct. Error Family tradition 21.8 (3.4) 52:2 (3.6) 45.5 (6.7) 19.4 (7.2) 38.1 (2.3) Fun/hobby 76.2 (3.5) 44.0 (3.6) 67.3 (6.4) 193.5 (4.5), 62.2 (2.2) Income 4.1 (1.7) 9.9 (2.2) 16.4 (4.8) I 0.0 (-) 8.0 (1.3) Food-source 75.5 (3.5) 31.5 (3.4) 37.0 (6.0) ( 77.4 (7.6) 51.4 (2.2) (eggs, meat Food quality(e.g., 79.6 (3.2) 38.1 (3.6) 40.0 (6.4) 77.4 (7.6) 56.1 (2.2) freshness,health Concerns about 57.1 (3.9) 48.1 (3.5) 38.2 (6.8) 51.6 (9.1) 50.2 (2.4) animal welfare I Concerns about the 55.9 (4.0) 43.1 (3.6) 36.4 (6.6) 54.8 (9.1) 47.6 (2.4) environment . Social interactions 23.1 (3.2) 22.1 (3.1) 25.5 (5.7) 125.8 (8.0) 23.2 (2.0) e. .,4-H,clubs I Learning experience 49.7 (4.0) 53.0 (3.6) 41.8 (6.8) 45.2 (9.1) 49.8 (2.4) for kids _ _ _+_______ Other 10.2 (2.5) 6.6 (1.8) ! 3.6 (2.6) 16.1 (6.7) 8.2 �1.3) USDA APHIS VS/59 Section I: Results-F.Characteristics of Urban Chicken Owners Percentage of Flocks that Rated the Following Reasons for Having Chickens as Very or Extremely Important(Score=4 or 5 on a Scale of 1 to 5), by City Reason 21.8 Family s V 52.2 tradition 45.5 FA 19.4 ;` 76.2 Fun/hobby 44.0 67.3 93.5 4.1 Income 9,9 16.4 0:n 75.5 Food source 31.5 37.0 77.4 79.6 Food quality .38.1 40.0 77.4 57.1 Concerns about W M 48.1 animal welfare 38.2 51.6 Concerns about 43.1 55.9 city the environment 36.4 Denver 54.8 Los Angeles 23.1 ®Miami Social 1, interactions 26.5 New York 25.8 Learning 49.7 experience 53.0 for kids 41.8 45.2 0 20 40 60 80 100 Percent 60/Poultry 2010 Section I: Results—F.Characteristics of Urban.Chicken Owners Percentage of Flocks that Rated the Following Reasons for Having Chickens as Very or Extremely Important(Score=4 or 5 on a Scale of 1 to 5), by City Reason 21.8 Family �'^M 52.2 tradition 45.5 19.4 76.2 Fun/hobby 44.0 67.3 93.5 4.1 Income 9.9 16.4 0.,0 Food sourceM37:0 75.5 • 77.4 79.6 Food quality 38.1 40.0 77.4 Concerns about 57.1 animal welfare 48.1 38.2 51.6 Concerns about 5.9 the environment 43.1 23 City 36 4 Denver 54.8 Los Angeles Social .1 interactions 1 N Miami 25-.5 New York 25.8 Learning 49.7 experience 53•0 for kids 41.8 45.2 0 20 40 60 80 100 Percent 60/Poultry 2010 Section I: Results--F.Characteristics of Urban Chicken Owners The importance of family tradition as a reason for having chickens increased from small to large flocks,while the importance of food source,food quality,and environmental concems decreased from small to large flocks. c. Percentage of flocks that rated the following reasons for having chickens as very or extremely important(Score=4 or 5 on a scale of 1 to 5),by flock size: Percent Flocks Flock Size(maximum number of chickens) Large Small 1-9 Medium 10-24 25 or more Std. Std. Std. Reason --FPct. Error Pct. Error Pct. Error Family tradition 31.0 (3.1) 43.8 (4.7) 48.3 (5.3) Fun/hobby 67.6 (3.1) 60.7 (4.6) 50.6 (5.2) Income 4.7 (1.4) 12.5 (3.1) 10.3 (3.3) . Food source(eggs, meat) 59.3 (3.1) 46.4 (4.6) 37.9 (5.1) Food quality(e.g., 63.3. (3.2) 52.7 (4.6) 42.5 (5.3) freshness, health Concerns about 54.0 (3.4) 46.4 (4.7) 46.0 (5.3) animal welfare Concerns about the 53.0 (3.4) 46.4 (4.7) 35.3 (5.2) environment Social interactions 21.9 (2.8) 25.0 (4.0) 24.1 (4.6) etc.,4-H,clubs Learning experience 47.9 (3.3) 50.0 (4.8) 54.0 (5.3) for kids Other 10.2 (2.0) 8.0 (2.6) 3.4 (2.0) =4 USDA APHIS VS/61 Section I:Results-F.Characteristics of Urban Chicken Owners V 2.Years,of chicken ownership On over one-half of flocks in Los Angeles and Miami the family had been raising chickens for 6 or more years.The family had been raising chickens for 5 years or less on three- fourths of flocks in Denver and all flocks in New York City. a.Percentage of flocks by number of years the family had been raising chickens,and by city: Percent Flocks . city Los Denver Angeles Miami New York All Number of Std. Std. Std. i Std. Std. Years Pct. Error Pct. Error Pct. Error i Pct. Error Pct. Error s Less than 1 32.9 (3.9) 15.5 (2.6) 12.5 (4.8) i 35.5 (8.7) i 23.1 (2.0) 1 to 5 43.8 (4.1) 33.9 (3.5) 33.3 (6.6) 64.5 (8.7) 39.8 (2.4) 6 to 19 15.1 (3.0) 21.9 (3.1) 22.9 (5.9) 0.0 (-)i 17.8 (1.9) 20 or more 8.2 (2.3) 28.7 (3.3) 31.3 (7.1) 1 0.0 (-) 19.3 (1.9) Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 1100.0 62/Poultry 2010 Section I:Results-F.Characteristics of Urban Chicken Owners 2.Years_of chicken ownership On over one-half of flocks in Los Angeles and Miami the family had been raising chickens for 6 or more years.The family had been raising chickens for 5 years or less on three- fourths of flocks in.Denver and all flocks in New York City. a.Percentage of flocks by number of years the family had been raising chickens,and by City: Percent Flocks . city Los Denver Angeles Miami New York All Number of Std. Std. Std. Std. Std. Years Pct. Error Pct. Error Pct. Error i Pct. Error Pct. Error Less than 1 32.9 (3.9) 15.5 (2.6) 12.5 (4.8) 35.5 (8.7) 23.1 (2.0) 1 to 5 43.8 (4.1) 33.9 (3.5) 33.3 (6.6) 64.5 (8.7) 39.8 (2.4) • 6 to 19 15.1 (3.0) 21.9 (3.1) 22.9 (5.9) 0.0 (-) ' 17.8 (1.9) . 20 or more 8.2 (2.3) 28.7 (3.3) 31.3 (7.1) i 0.0 (-) 19.3 (1.9) Total 100.0 100.0 10.0.0 100.0 100.0 621 Poultry 2010 Section I: Results—F. Characteristics of Urban Chicken Owners Percentage of Flocks by Number of Years the Family had been Ralsing.Chickens, and by City Percent 80 City Denver 64.5. Los Angeles 60 ®Miami New York 43.8 40 32.9 35.5 33.9 33..3 110.0 31.3 21.9 22•9 20 15.5 15.1 12.5 8.2 0 �- 0.0 Less than 1 1 to 5 6 to 19 20 or more Number Years USDA APHIS VS/63 Section I: Results-F.Characteristics of Urban Chicken Owners The percentage of flocks in which the family had been raising chickens for less than 1 year decreased with flock size,while the percentage of flocks in which the family had been raising chickens for 20 years or more increased with flock size. b. Percentage of flocks by number of years the family had been raising chickens,and by flock size: Percent Flocks Flock Size(maximum number of chickens) Small (1-9) Medium (10-24) Large(25 or more) Number Years Pct. Std.Error Pct. Std. Error Pct. Std. Error Less than 1 36.7 (3.3) 10.3 (2.9) 4.9 (2.4) 1 to 5 43.3 . (3.4) 42.1 (4.6) 28.1 (5.0) 6 to 19 11.0 (2.1) 19.6 (3`9) 32.9 (5.2) 20 or more _ 9.0 (1.9) 28.0 �(4.3) 34.1 (5.3) Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 3.Children in household There were children under 5 years of age living in the household for about one-fourth of flocks(24.7 percent),and children 5 to 17 years of age living in the household for about one-half of flocks(50.8 percent). In Los Angeles,about three-fourths of flocks had children living in the household(71.4 percent). a. Percentage of flocks with children of the following ages living in the household,by city: Percent Flocks City Los Denver Angeles Miami New York All Std. j Std. Std. Std. Std. Age ears j Pct. Error Pct. Error Pct. Error Pct. Error Pct. Error Under 5 16.6 (3.1) 37.3 (3.5) 13.0 (4.1) 6.9 (4.8) 24.7 (2.0) 5 to 17 45.5 (4.0) 62.2 (3.6) 27.8 (6.3) 48.3 (9.4) 50.8 (2.4) Either 49.0 (4.0) 1 71.4 (3.3) 37.0 (6.5) 51.7 (9.4) 57.6 (2.3) 64/Poultry 2010 Section I:Results-F.Characteristics of Urban Chicken Owners r The percentage of flocks in which the family had been raising chickens for less than 1 year decreased with flock size,while the percentage of flocks in which the family had been raising chickens for 20 years or more increased with flock size. b. Percentage of flocks by number of years the family had been raising chickens,and by flock size: Percent Flocks Flock Size(maximum number of chickens) Small (179) Medium(10-24) Large(25 or more) Number Years Pct. Std.Error Pct. Std.Error Pct. Std. Error Less than 1 36.7 (3.3) 10.3 (2.9) 4.9 (2.4) ti 1 to 5 43.3 (3.4) 42.1 (4.6) 28.1 (5.0) 6 to 19 11.0 (2.1) 19.6 (3.9) 32.9 (5.2) • 20 or more 9.0 (1.9) 28.0 (4.3) 34.1 (5.3) Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 3.Children in household There were children under 5 years of age living in the household for about one-fourth of flocks(24.7 percent),and children 5 to 17 years of age living in the household for about one-half of flocks(50.8 percent). In Los Angeles,about three-fourths of flocks had children living in the household(71.4 percent). a.Percentage of flocks with children of the following ages living in the household,by city: Percent Flocks City Los Denver Angeles Miami New York All II Std. Std. Std. Std. Std. Age ears i Pct. Error Pct. Error Pct. Error Pct. Error Pct. Error Under 5 16.6 (3.1) 37.3 (3.5) 13.0 (4.1) 6.9 (4.8) 24.7 (2.0) 1 i 5 to 17 45.5 (4.0) j 62.2 (3.6) 27.8 (6.3) 48.3 (9.4) 50.8 (2.4) • Either ; 49.0 (4.0) 71.4 (3.3) 37.0 (6.5) 51.7 (9.4) 57.6 (2.3) 64/Poultry 2010 Section I:Results—F.Characteristics of Urban Chicken Owners !'� ' The percentage of flocks in which children were living in the household was similar across flock sizes. b. Percentage of flocks with children of the following ages living in the household,by flock size: Percent Flocks Flock Size(maximum number of chickens) Small (1-9) Medium(10-24) Large(25 or more) Age(Years) Pct. Std.Error Pct. Std. Error Pct. Std. Error Under 5 20.5 (2.7) 29.5 (4.3) 29.1 (4.8) 5 to 17 48.4 (3.4) 50.9 (4.7) 57.0 (5.2) Either 54.4 (3.4) 58.0 (4.6) 65.1 (5.0) Children had contact with the chickens on 61.5 percent of flocks in which children under 1t the age of 5 were present and 77.1 percent of flocks in which children between the ages of 5 to 17 were present. c. For flocks with children of the following ages living in the household,percentage of flocks in which children had contact with the chickens: Age(years) Percent Flocks Std.Error Under 5 61.5 (5.1) 5 to 17 77.1 (2.8) USDA APHIS VS/65 Section I:Results—F.Characteristics of Urban Chicken Owners 4.Awareness of Salmonella About one-half of respondents(46.0 percent)were aware of a connection.between poultry and Salmonella infection in people,ranging from 30.2 percent of respondents in Los Angeles.to 65.3 percent of respondents in Denver.Common sources for this knowledge • included television,the Internet,books,and word of mouth. a.Percentage of flocks in which the respondent was aware of the connection between poultry contact(such as contact with chicks or ducks)and Salmonella infection in people, by city: Percent Flocks City Denver Los Angeles Miami New York All Std. Std. ! Std. Std. Std. Pct. Error Pct. Error i Pct. Error Pct. Error Pct. Error 65.3 (3.9) 30.2 (3.3) 1 40.0 (6.2) 58.1 (9.0) 46.0 (2.3) Awareness of a connection between poultry and Salmonella infection in people was similar across flock sizes. b. Percentage of flocks in which the respondent was aware of a connection between poultry contact(such as contact with chicks or ducks)and Salmonella infection in people, by flock size: Percent Flocks Flock Size(maximum number of chickens) Small (1-9) Medium (10-24) Large(25 or more) Percent Std. Error Percent Std. Error Percent Std.Error 48.6 (3.3) 44.7 (4.5) 1 41.4 (5.2) 66/Poultry 2010 Section I:Results—F.Characteristics of Urban Chicken Owners 4.Awareness of Salmonella About one-half of respondents(46.0 percent)were aware of a connection.between poultry and Salmonella infection in people,ranging from 30.2 percent of respondents in Los Angeles to 65.3 percent of respondents in Denver.Common sources for this knowledge included television,the Internet,books,and word of mouth. a.Percentage of flocks in which the respondent was aware of the connection between poultry contact(such as contact with chicks or ducks)and Salmonella infection in people, by city: Percent Flocks City Denver Los Angeles Miami New York All Std. Std. I Std. Std. Std. Pct. Error Pct. Error Pct. Error Pct. Error Pct. Error 65.3 (3.9) 30.2 (3.3). 40.0 (6.2) 58.1 (9.0) .46.0 (2.3) Awareness of a connection between poultry and Salmonella infection in people was similar across flock sizes. b.Percentage of flocks in which the respondent was aware of a connection between poultry contact(such as contact with chicks or ducks)and Salmonella infection in people, by flock size: Percent Flocks Flock Size(maximum number of chickens) Small (1-9) Medium(10-24) Large(25 or more) Percent Std. Error Percent Std.Error Percent Std.Error 48.6 (3.3) 44.7 (4.5) 41.4 (5.2) 66/Poultry 2010 Section I:Results—F.Characteristics of Urban Chicken Owners Membership in an avian association did not differ substantially by flock size. b. Percentage of flocks in which the respondent or respondent's family members belonged to any type of poultry or avian association(including 4-H, FFA),by flock size: Percent Flocks Flock Size(maximum number of chickens) Small (1-9) Medium(10-24) Large (25 or more) Percent Std.Error Percent Std. Error Percent Std.Error i 6.5 (1.5) 12.3 (2.9) 13.5 (3.5) 6."Biosecurity for Birds"awareness Overall,29.4 percent of respondents had heard of the USDA's"Biosecuhty for Birds" campaign. a. Percentage of flocks in which the respondent had heard of USDAs"Biosecurity for Birds"educational campaign,by city: Percent Flocks city Denver Los Angeles Miami New York All Std. Std. Std. Std. Std. Pct. Error Pct. Error Pct. Error Pct. Error Pct. Error 21.1 (3.2) 34.1 (3.5) 39.3 (6.3) 22.6 (7.6) 29.4 (2.2) 681 Poultry 2010 Section I:Results--F.Characteristics of Urban Chicken Owners One-half of households in which children had contact with chickens were aware of a connection between poultry and Salmonella infection in people.Awareness of a connection between poultry and Salmonella infection in people did not differ substantially based on whether children were present or whether children had contact with chickens. c. Percentage of flocks in which the respondent was aware of a connection between poultry contact(such as contact with chicks or ducks)and Salmonella infection in people, by whether children living in the household had contact with the chickens: Percent Flocks Children*Had Chicken Contact? No Children in Yes No Household Percent Std.Error Percent Std. Error Percent Std.Error 50.0 (3.8) 35.7 (6.4) 45.7 (3..7) *Under 18 years of age. 5.Membership in avian associations Overall,respondents or family members belonged to an avian association in 1 of 10 flocks (9.5 percent), ranging from 1.1 percent of flocks in Los Angeles to 18.4 percent of flocks in Denver. a. Percentage of flocks in which the respondent or respondent's family members belonged to any type of poultry or avian association(including 4-H, FFA),by city: Percent Flocks City Denver Los Angeles Miami New York All Std. Std. i Std. Std. Std. Pct. Error Pct. Error I Pct. Error Pct. Error Pct. Error I 18.4 (2.6) 1.1 (0.8) 14.3 (4.1) 10.0 (5.6) 9.5 (1.2) • USDA APHIS VS/67 Section I:Results—F.Characteristics of Urban Chicken Owners Membership in an avian.association did not differ substantially by flock size. b.Percentage of flocks in which the respondent or respondent's family members belonged to any type of poultry or avian association(including,4-H, FFA), by flock size: Percent Flocks Flock Size(maximum number of chickens) Small (1-9) Medium(%-24) Large(25 or more) Percent Std.Error Percent Std.Error Percent Std.Error 6.5 (1.5) 12.3 (2.9) 13.5 (3.5) 6."Biosecurity for Birds"awareness Overall,29.4 percent of respondents had heard of the USDA's"Biosecurity for Birds" campaign. a. Percentage of flocks in which the respondent had heard of USDAs"Biosecurity for . Birds"educational campaign,by city: Percent Flocks city Denver Los Angeles Miami New York All Std. Std. Std. Std. I Std. Pct. Error Pct. Error Pct. Error Pct. Error Pct. Error 21.1 (3.2) 34.1 (3.5) 39.3 (6.3) 22.6 (7.6) 29.4 (2.2) 68/Poultry 2010 Section I:Results—F.Characteristics of Urban Chicken Owners Membership in an avian_association did not differ substantially by flock size. b.Percentage of flocks in which the respondent or respondent's family members belonged to any type of poultry or avian association(including•4-H,FFA),by flock size: . Percent Flocks Flock Size(maximum number of chickens) Small(1-9) Medium(%-24) Large(25 or more) Percent Std.Error Percent Std.Error Percent Std.Error 6.5 (1.5) 12.3 (2.9) 13.5 (3.5) 6."Biosecurity for Birds"awareness Overall,29.4 percent of respondents had heard of the USDA's"Biosecurity for Birds" campaign. • a.Percentage of flocks in which the respondent had heard of USDAs"Biosecurity for �. Birds"educational campaign,by city: Percent Flocks city Denver Los Angeles Miami New York All Std. Std. Std. Std. 1 Std. Pct. Error Pct. Error Pct. Error Pct. Error Pct. Error i 21.1 (3.2) 34.1 (3.5) 1 39.3 (6.3) 22.6 (7.6) 29.4 (2.2) 68/Poultry 2010 Section I:Results-F.Characteristics of Urban Chicken Owners • Respondents had heard of the USDA's"Biosecurity for Birds"campaign on about one- third of medium and large flocks(36.8 and 36.4 percent,respectively). b. Percentage of flocks in.which the respondent had heard of USDA's"Biosecurity for Birds"campaign, by flock size: Percent Flocks Flock Size(maximum number of chickens) Small (1-9) Medium (10-24) Large(25 or more) Percent Std.Error Percent Std. Error Percent Std.Error 22.6 (2.8) 36.8 (4.5) 36.4 (5.1) Biosecurity practices were similar for respondents that had heard of the USDA's 'Biosecurity for Birds"campaign and for those that had not heard of it. c. Percentage of flocks that always or sometimes required the following biosecurity practices for people(including family members)entering the chicken area,by whether the respondent had heard of USDA's"Biosecurity for Birds"educational campaign: Percent Flocks Heard of"Biosecurity for Birds"? Yes No Practice Percent Std.Error i Percent Std. Error Use of footbath before entry 29.8 (4.0) 26.4 (2.4) Scrub boots/shoes before entry 36.4 (4.2) 27.2 (2.5) Wear shoe covers,.wear dedicated shoes,or 43.0 (4.4) 39.1 (2.8) change shoes Any footwear requirement 52.9 (4.4) 50.8 (2.8) Wear dedicated clothing or 40.5 (4.3) 30.6 (2.7) change clothing before entering _ Wash hands before 71.9 handling chickens _ (4.0) 63.9 _ (2.7) Wash hands after 9 • handling90.9 (2.5) 87.8 (1.8) USDA APHIS VS/69 Section II:Methodology .Section II: Methodology A.Needs NAHMS develops study objectives by exploring existing literature and contacting industry Assessment members and other stakeholders about their informational needs and priorities during a needs assessment phase. For Poultry 2010,the following activities were conducted: • Afocus group consisting of industry,State,Federal,and university representatives met at the International Poultry Exposition in Atlanta, Georgia in January 2008. • A needs assessment questionnaire was distributed to poultry veterinarians via the presidents of the egg layer,broiler,turkey,and primary breeder veterinary groups. This questionnaire was also distributed to State and Federal veterinarians,and laboratory and research personnel. • Discussions were held with each of the poultry veterinary groups at the American Association of Avian Pathologists meetings in New Orleans,Louisiana in July 2008,and in Seattle,Washington in July 2009. • Additional discussions occurred at the United States Animal Health Association Transmissible Diseases of Poultry Committee meeting.This•committee recommended studying urban chickens. S. Sampling and 9.City selection Data Collection Four large cities were selected for inclusion in the urban chicken study: Denver,Colorado; Los Angeles,California;Miami,Florida;and New York City, New York.These cities were selected because they were geographically diverse.Also,it was hypothesized that two of these cities(Los Angeles and Miami)had a long history of chicken ownership,and the other two cities had a shorter history of chicken ownership. 2.Feed stores Customers of feed stores in Denver, Los Angeles,and Miami were asked to complete a confidential questionnaire.The questionnaire was available in English and Spanish. Feed stores that sold chicken feed within the metropolitan areas of Denver,Los Angeles, and Miami were identified using public online directories and/or lists available to State or Federal governments.All identified feed stores were contacted for participation.The only eligibility requirement for feed stores was that they estimated having at least five customers purchasing chicken feed on an average Saturday.Feed stores that agreed to participate were visited by APHIS and State data collectors,most often on Saturdays. 70/Poultry 2010 i Section II:Methodology .Section II: Methodology A.Needs NAHMS develops study objectives by exploring existing literature and contacting industry Assessment members and other stakeholders about their informational needs and priorities during a needs assessment phase. For Poultry 2010,the following activities were conducted: • Afocus group consisting of industry,State,Federal,and university representatives met at the International Poultry Exposition in Atlanta,Georgia in January 2008. • A needs assessment questionnaire was distributed to poultry veterinarians via the presidents of the egg layer,broiler,turkey,and primary breeder veterinary groups. This questionnaire was also distributed to State and Federal veterinarians,and laboratory and research personnel. • Discussions were held with each of the poultry veterinary groups at the American Association of Avian Pathologists meetings in New Orleans,Louisiana in July 2008,and in Seattle,Washington in July 2009. • Additional discussions occurred at the United States Animal Health Association Transmissible Diseases of Poultry Committee meeting.This�committee recommended studying urban chickens. • S. Sampling and 1.City selection Data Collection Four large cities were selected for inclusion in the urban chicken study: Denver,Colorado; Los Angeles,California;Miami,Florida;and New York City, New York.These cities were selected because they were geographically diverse.Also,it was hypothesized that two of these cities(Los Angeles and Miami)had a long history of chicken ownership,and the other two cities had a shorter history of chicken ownership. 2.Feed stores Customers of feed stores in Denver, Los Angeles,and Miami were asked to complete a confidential questionnaire.The questionnaire was available in English and Spanish. Feed stores that sold chicken feed within the metropolitan areas of Denver, Los Angeles, and Miami were identified using public online directories and/or lists available to State or Federal governments.All identified feed stores were contacted for participation.The only eligibility requirement for feed stores was that they estimated having at least five customers purchasing chicken feed on an average Saturday.Feed stores that agreed to participate were visited by APHIS and State data collectors,most often on Saturdays. 70/Poultry 2010 Section II:Methodology • 3. Additional data collection methods In New York City,only one large feed store was identified.Although selling a moderate volume of feed,the store reported that customers tended to purchase large amounts of feed at one time,and,therefore,the number of customers on any given day may not meet the five customer requirement.This feed store reported that the majority of their chicken-feed customers belonged to a chicken club in New York.An educational presentation was offered to members of this chicken club by an APHIS data collector,and attendees were asked to complete the questionnaire.The presentation was advertised on the club's Web site.Additionally,the questionnaire was accessible.to members via the club's Web site.All completed questionnaires in New York City were.from this source. Chicken owners who did not belong to this club are not represented in this study. In Denver,data collectors attended three county fairs in addition to feed store visits.The fairs yielded 10 questionnaires.These respondents might have increased the Denver estimates regarding chicken movement to fairs,etc. Respondents had to meet the eligibility requirements(see item 4 below). • 4.(despondent eligibility requirements Customers who entered participating feed stores while data collectors were present were eligible to complete the questionnaire if they met the following eligibility requirements: • Had at least one chicken on the day they completed the questionnaire • if the respondent lived in a single family home,the home had to be on less than 1 acre of land • Lived within a defined geographic area(see maps at the beginning of this report) or kept their chickens in a community coop located within the defined geographic area. These requirements were intended to limit the study to chicken owners in truly urban areas, as opposed to the outskirts of urban areas.Respondents were offered a$10 coupon toward their purchase at the feed store that day as an incentive to complete the questionnaire. Data collection was conducted between June and September 2010. • USDA APHIS VS/71 f Section II: Methodology C. Data Analysis 1.Validation Data collectors sent completed Survey of Chicken Owners questionnaires to NAHMS. P Y Data entry and validation were completed by NAHMS staff using SAS. New York City questionnaires that were completed on the Internet were downloaded by NAHMS staff and imported P o ed into SAS. 2.Estimation Astratified random sample was assumed,with the strata being individual feed stores. In Denver,all three fairs were considered to be a single stratum..In New York City,the chicken club was the sole stratum.Point estimates were generated using SUDAAN software,which accounts for clustering. Respondent data were not statistically weighted and are intended to provide insight about the population rather than precise population estimates. 3.Sample results Results cover the limited population of chicken owners in the geographically defined areas in the four cities. Inferences cannot be made to a larger population of chicken owners. Denver: Results cover chicken owners who met the eligibility requirements and visited feed stores or county fairs. Los Angeles: Results cover chicken owners who met the eligibility requirements and visited feed stores. Miami: Results cover chicken owners who met the eligibility requirements and visited feed stores. New York City: Results cover members of a particular chicken club who had online access and met the eligibility requirements. 4.Response rates a.Feed stores City Number of Participating Feed Stores Denver 6 Los Angeles 7 Miami 7 New York 0 • 72/Poultry 2010 Section 11:Methodology C. Data Analysis 1.Validation Data collectors sent completed Survey of Chicken Owners questionnaires to NAHMS. Data entry and validation were completed by NAHMS staff using SAS.New York City questionnaires that were completed on the Internet were downloaded by NAHMS staff and imported into SAS. 2.Estimation A stratified random sample was assumed,with the strata being individual feed stores. In Denver,all three fairs were considered to be a single stratum,In New York City,the chicken club was the sole stratum.Point estimates were generated using SUDAAN software,which accounts for clustering.Respondent data were not statistically weighted and are intended to provide insight about the population rather than precise population estimates. 3.Sample results Results cover the limited population of chicken owners in the geographically defined areas in the four cities. Inferences cannot be made to a larger population of chicken owners. Denver:Results cover chicken owners who met the eligibility requirements and visited �. feed stores or county fairs. Los Angeles: Results cover chicken owners who met the eligibility requirements and visited feed stores. Miami:Results cover chicken owners who met the eligibility requirements and visited feed stores. New York City: Results cover members of a particular chicken club who had online access and met the eligibility requirements. 4.Response rates a.Feed stores City Number of Participating Feed Stores Denver g Los Angeles 7 Miami , 7 New York p 72 I Poultry 2010 Section II:Methodology b.Respondents Number of Completed Surveys Response Category Survey Survey Response Rate city Complete Refused Total (percent) Denver 147 11 158 93.0 Los Angeles 200 32 232 86.2 Miami 86 23 109 78.9 New York 33 33 Total 466 66 532 87.6 "Number refusals could not be determined in New York. Number of Usable Surveys Category Illegible or Usable city Usable Not Eligible Duplicate Total (percent) Denver 147 0 ( 0 I 147 100.0 i Los Angeles 189 5 6 200 94.5 Miami 56 27* 3 86 65.1 New York 33 0 0 i 33 100.0 Total 425 32 9 466 91.2 •Initially,questionnaires were accidentally collected from ineligible respondents. USDA APHIS VS/73 Appendix:Sample Profile Appendix: Sample Profile A. Number of Flock Size Number Respondents(usable) Respondents by Flock Size 1 to 9 219 10 to 24 115 25 or more 91 Total 425 B. Number of Respondents Respondents by Language and by Language City(usable) English Spanish City Number Percent Number Percent Total Denver 142 96.5 5 3.5 147 Los 59 31.2 130 68.8 189 Angeles Miami 33 58.9 23 41.1 56 ` New York 33 100.0 0 0.0 33 Total 267 158 425 74/Poultry 2010 Appendix:Sample Profile Appendix: Sample Profile A. Number of Flock Size Number Respondents(usable) 'Respondents by Flock Size 1 to 9 219 10 to 24 115 25 or more 91 Total 425 B. Number of Respondents Respondents by Language and by Language City(usable) English Spanish City Number Percent Number Percent Total Denver 142 96.5 5 3.5 147 • Los 59 31.2 130 68.8 189 Angeles Miami 33 58.9 23 41.1 56 New York 33 100.0 0 0.0 33 Total 267 158 425 74/Poultry 2010 f Residential Urban Chicken Keeping: An Examination of 25 Cities T ANAL r f 1 , Missoula Residents with their backyard chickens. Source:http://www.missoula.conVnews/node/226 KT LaBadie CRP 580 Spring 2008 University of New Mexico May 7th 2008 Table of Contents Introduction.......................................................................................................................4 ResearchMethods............................................................................................................. 5 Analysis..............................................................................................................................6 Locating and Understanding the Ordinances............................................................... 12 Number of Birds Permitted............................................................................................. 7 Regulationof Roosters.................................................................................................... 8 Permitsand Fees............................................................................................................. 8 Enclosure Requirements................................................................................................. 9 NuisanceClauses............................................................................................................9 Slaughtering Restrictions.............................................................................................. 10 DistanceRestrictions.................................................................................................... 10 UniqueRegulations....................................................................................................... 11 Findings and Recommendations.................................................................................... 12 Conclusions...................................................................................................................... 14 References........................................................................................................................ 16 AppendixA...................................................................................................................... 17 25 Ordinances Analyzed............................................................................................... 17 AppendixB...................................................................................................................... 18 Sources for 25 Ordinances............................................................................................ 18 AppendixC...................................................................................................................... 19 Exampleordinance........................................................................................................ 19 i 2 • Abstract City councils across the United States and Canada are increasingly being faced with the task of deciding whether or not to allow chicken keeping in residential backyards. In many cases this issue has two opposing sides: those citizens who want to keep chickens for egg production and those citizens who are concerned about the effects of chickens on their communities. This paper provides an analysis of pro-chicken ordinances from 25 cities in an effort to define the components of a just and well functioning chicken ordinance. Of the 25 ordinances, no two were identical but a variety of common regulatory themes were found across cities. Based on these findings, some considerations are suggested when forming an urban chicken keeping ordinance. 3 Introduction "l can't say that I would have envisioned chickens as an issue, but I've heard from a lot of people about them, and it seems like it's something maybe we ought to pay a little attention to."I -Stacy Rye,Missoula City Councilwoman It's happening right now in cities across the United States and Canada. Community members are organizing themselves into groups and approaching their city councils about an important urban planning issue: chicken keeping in the city. This question of whether or not cities should allow backyard chicken keeping has increased substantially over the past 5 years as citizens become more interested in participating in their own food production. The issue has appeared recently before city councils in Missoula2, Halifax3, and Madison 4, and a case is currently pending in Ann Arbor, Michigan. In many cases this interest in backyard chicken keeping has been met with much opposition and city councils often do not know how to begin approaching the issue. The recent increase in urban backyard chicken keeping has come about for three main reasons. First, the local food movement itself has become very popular which has sparked a new interest for many in backyard food production. Since chickens are one of the smaller protein producers, they fit well into a backyard food production model. Second, rising energy and transportation costs have caused concern over increases in food costs, and backyard eggs offer a cheaper solution as they do not have to travel far to reach the plate. Lastly, many citizens are becoming increasingly concerned about food safety, and with meat recalls and other animal industry issues in the news, backyard chickens offer many a safer solution. For these reasons, backyard chickens have become 1 Moore,Michael. Urban Chickens Scratching up a Controversy in Missoula. .Available online at http://www.missoula.com/news/node/226 2 Medley,Ann and Jonathan Stumph. Video:Missoula Squabbles Over Urban Chickens. Available online at http://www.newwest.net/city/article/missoulas_urban_chicken_squabble/C8/L8/ 3 CBC News. Halifax to Study Chickens in Cities. Available online at http://www.cbc.ca/consumer/story/2008/02/12/chicken-report.htmi 4 Harrison-Noonan,Dennis. Urban chicken keeper,Madison,Wisconsin. Interviewed on April 8,2008. 5 Kunselman,Steve.City Councilor(ward 3)Ann Arbor,Michigan. Interviewed on April 29,2008. 4 increasingly popular, but not everyone likes the idea of chickens living in their neighborhood. There are generally two sides to the chicken keeping issue: those who are for allowing Gallus domesticus in residential backyards, and those who are opposed. There are a variety of reasons why people want to keep chickens, ranging from having a safe source of protein to gaining a closer relationship to the food they consume. Those who are opposed to backyard chickens however, often express concerns about noise, smells, diseases, or the potential for chickens running loose. There is also debate between the two sides as to the appropriateness of chickens in a city environment and if chickens qualify as pets or livestock. Chicken keeping in urban environments is nothing new, but it is now something that needs to be planned for in all major cities and small towns across the United States. As the interest in the local food movement continues to increase, and as citizens become more interested in growing their own food, municipalities will eventually be faced with • the issue of regulating backyard chicken keeping within their city limits. Planning for chickens can either be pro-active on the part of the city council and planning staff, or reactionary as citizens will eventually bring the issue to city hall. Municipalities often do not know how to approach the chicken keeping issue, and this paper serves to provide some insight through an analysis of urban chicken ordinances from across the United States. Research Methods The main goal of this paper was to analyze how residential backyard chicken keeping is regulated through the examination of chicken ordinances from a variety of cities. To achieve this, data was gathered through the examination of residential chicken ordinances, as well as through a variety of interviews, newspaper articles, video footage, and other resources. Residential chicken ordinances from over 30 cities were gathered, however only 25 of the cities allowed the keeping of chickens, so only those were used in the analysis (see 5 I Appendix A). The ordinances were sourced from city web sites, online web ordinance databases, and other online sources (see Appendix B). In a few instances calls were made to city planning departments to verify language in the ordinances. Interviews were conducted with the following city officials, urban chicken keepers, and urban food/gardening community organizations: ■ Steve Kunselman, City Councilor(ward 3) Ann Arbor, Michigan. He proposed pro-chicken ordinances for Ann Arbor, which are being voted on in May of 2008. ■ Thomas Kriese: An urban chicken keeper in Redwood, CA and writer about urban chickens at http://myurbanchickens.blogspot.com/ ■ Dennis Harrison-Noonan, urban chicken keeper, Madison,Wisconsin. He was involved in the adoption of pro-chicken ordinances for Madison. ■ Debra Lippoldt,Executive Director of Growing Gardens, Portland, OR These interviews served to provide personal insights into urban chicken keeping, stakeholder positions, and the urban chicken movement. The interviews were also crucial in receiving feedback about chicken ordinances and the process involved in legalizing chicken keeping. Analysis Of the 25 cities evaluated, no two were identical in their restrictions and allowances (see chart of detailed findings in Appendix A). There were, however, common regulatory themes that emerged from the set evaluated. These common themes are as follows: ■ The number of birds permitted per household ■ The regulation of roosters ■ Permits and fees required for keeping chickens ■ Chicken enclosure/containment restrictions ■ Nuisance clauses related to chickens ■ Slaughtering restrictions ■ Coop distance restrictions in relation to homes or property lines The findings of the above commonalities, as well as unique regulations that emerged, are discussed in detail below. The ease and accessibility of finding the ordinances is also • discussed. 6 • Number of Birds Permitted Of the 25 cities evaluated, only 6 had unclear(or not specifically stated) regulations on the numbers of birds permitted, while 13 stated a specific number of birds. Of the remaining, 3 cities used lot size to determine the number of chickens permitted, 2 cities used distance from property lines as a determining factor, and 1 city placed no limit on the number of chickens allowed. Over half of the cities evaluated stated a specific number of allowable chickens, which ranged from 2 to 25 birds. The most common number of birds permitted was either 3 or 4 birds, which occurred in 8 cities. The most common number of birds permitted was 3 or 4, which will supply on average between 1 and 2 dozen eggs per week. Depending on the size of the family in the household, this may be sufficient. In some cases however, 3 to 4 birds may not be enough for larger family sizes or allow for giving away eggs to neighbors. In cities where it is legal to sell your eggs at farmers markets, 3 or 4 birds would not be sufficient. So what is a good number of chickens to allow in residential backyards for home consumption? Thomas Kriese, an urban chicken keeper who writes online about chicken keeping and ordinances, feels that no more than 6 birds should be permitted. "That's approximately 3 dozen eggs a week which is a LOT of eggs to consume, plus that's a lot of food to go through, and excrement to clean up,"he stated in a personal correspondence.6 The answer of how many birds to allow is not an easy one, as other factors such as average property sizes and controlling for nuisances should be considered. A good example of how to address the issue surrounding the number of birds is Portland, Oregon's chicken ordinance. Portland allows the keeping of 3 birds per household; however you are allowed to apply for a permit to keep more(See Appendix A). In this case the ordinance is flexible, as a sufficient number of birds are permitted outright, and those wishing to keep more can apply to do so. 6 Kriese,Thomans. Urban chicken keeper,Redwood City,CA. Personal correspondence on April 28, 2008. His coverage of urban chicken ordinances is available online at http://myurbanchickens.blogspot.com/ 7 I� • Regulation of Roosters The regulations regarding roosters were unclear in 14 cities and in 7 cities the keeping of roosters was not permitted. Of the remaining 4 in which the keeping of roosters was permitted, 1 city allowed roosters if kept a certain distance from neighbors residences, 1 allowed roosters only under 4 months of age, 1 allowed a single rooster per household, and 1 placed no restrictions. Many cities choose to not allow the keeping of roosters, as neighbors often complain about the crowing which can occur at any hour of the day. Since one of the main reasons people choose to keep chickens is for the eggs, which roosters do not provide, it is generally accepted to only allow hens. In the case of Albuquerque, New Mexico, 1 rooster is allowed per household but it is still subject to noise ordinances (see Appendix A). So in this case, you can keep your rooster if your neighbors do not mind the crowing. This does allow people to have more choice, however it can also increase the costs associated with enforcing noise complaints. Permits and Fees The regulation of chickens through city permits and fees was unclear in 11 of the cities evaluated, while 4 required no permits or associated fees, and 10 required permits, fees, or both. The fees ranged from$5.00 to $40.00, and were either 1 time fees or annual fees. Of the 10 that required permits/fees, 3 required permits only if the number of birds exceeded a set amount which ranged from 3 to 6 birds. In two instances, it is also required that the birds be registered with the state department of agriculture. Requiring a permit for chickens is no different than requiring one for dogs and cats, which is the case in most cities. From the perspective of affordable egg production however, attaching a large fee to the permit undermines that purpose. If a fee is too steep in price, it can exclude lower income populations from keeping chickens by increasing the costs of egg production. Fees may be necessary however to cover the associated costs for the municipality to regulate chickens. Another option, which was the approach of 3 cities, was to allow a certain number of birds with no permit/fee required, and anything 8 • above that required a permit/fee. This allows equal participation and lowered costs, while still providing revenue for the regulation of larger bird populations. Enclosure Requirements In 9 cities the ordinances were unclear in regards to enclosure requirements or the allowance of free roaming chickens. Of the remaining, 2 had no restrictions and 14 required that chickens be enclosed and were not permitted to "run at large". In one case, the approval of a coop building plan and use of certain materials was required. Over half of the cities evaluated required that chickens be enclosed, and this regulation can help to alleviate the concerns of neighbors. Many chicken keepers want to keep their chickens confined in a coop and outdoor run, as this helps to protect them from predators. However, it is very restrictive to require confinement of chickens at all times, as many keepers enjoy watching their chickens free range about the yard. Just as there are regulations for leashing your dog, so too could there be regulation for only allowing chickens to roam in their own yard. Requiring a building permit with specific material requirements, is also restrictive to lower income populations, and takes away from the sustainability of keeping chickens for eggs. In many cases, chicken coops are built with scrap materials and suit the design needs of the owner. Requiring a specific design or materials takes those choices away from the chicken keeper. Coops should be treated similar to dog houses, which are generally not subject to this type of regulation. Nuisance Clauses There were a variety of nuisance regulations stated in 17 of the cities evaluated, while the remaining 8 cities had unclear nuisance regulations. The nuisances that were stated in the 17 ordinances included one or more of the following: noise, smells, public health concerns, attracting flies and rodents, and cleanliness of coops/disposal of manure. Chicken keeping alone does not cause the nuisances listed above, but rather they result from improper care and maintenance which can sometimes occur. • 9 A properly shaped ordinance can prevent potential nuisances by establishing clear guidelines for chicken care and maintenance, such as only allowing smaller sized flocks and not permitting roosters. An active community led education campaign, such as chicken keeping classes and coup tours, is another way in which to educate the public to ensure proper care and reduce the potential for nuisances. In many cities, chicken keeping community organizations have helped to educate the public on how to properly keep chickens within the limits of the law, thereby reducing nuisances and complaints. Slaughtering Restrictions Regulations regarding the slaughtering of chickens in residential areas were unclear in 19 of the cities evaluated. Of the remaining,4 allowed slaughtering of chickens while 2 stated it was illegal to do so. This regulatory theme had the highest level of unknowns, most likely due to the issue not being included in the ordinance, or it being stated in another section of the general animal ordinances, and not referring specifically to chickens. Although slaughtering chickens within city limits seems gruesome to some, others may wish to slaughter their birds for meat. Rogers, Arkansas for example, only allows the slaughtering to take place inside(Appendix Q, which could help prevent neighbor complaints about the process. Allowing for slaughtering however, may also have its benefits, such as being a solution to aging urban chickens that no longer produce eggs. Distance Restrictions Distance restrictions between the location of the chicken coop and property lines, or coop and nearby residences, were stated in 16 of the ordinances evaluated. There were no restrictions in 3 of the ordinances and 5 were unclear. Of the 16 with distance restrictions, 12 were distances required from residences, while 3 were distances required from property lines. The distance required from property lines ranged from 10 to 90 feet, while the distances from residences ranged from 20 to 50 feet. If a city chooses to have distance restrictions, the average lot sizes need to be taken into . consideration. For example, Spokane,WA has a property line distance restriction of 90 10 feet (see Appendix A), which may be impossible to achieve in many residential yards. This large of a requirement would prevent many people from keeping chickens. The lower distance requirements, such as 10 or 20 feet are more feasible to achieve for those with smaller lot sizes. Distance requirements to neighboring homes (vs. property lines) are also easier achieve as the distance considers part of the neighbors property in addition to the chicken keepers property. Unique Regulations All 25 ordinances evaluated had some combination of the above common themes, but there were also some unique regulations that one(or a few) cities had related to residential chicken keeping. These unique regulations are as follows: ■ Chicken feed must be stored in rat proof containers ■ Pro-chicken regulations are on a 1-year trial basis with only a set number of permits issued until the yearly re-evaluation. ■ For every additional 1,000 sq. feet of property above a set minimum, 1 additional chicken may be added to the property. ■ The allowance of chickens in multi-family zoned areas (allowance in single family zoning is most common) ■ Coops must be mobile to protect turf and prevent the build up of pathogens and waste. ■ Chickens must be provided with veterinary care if ill or injured ■ Minimum square footage requirements per bird for coop/enclosure The unique regulations listed offer some innovative solutions to possible issues such as pests and waste, as well as defining minimum space and health care standards for chickens. Some of these regulations also allow for more flexibility, such as extending the right to keep chickens to those living in multi-family dwelling units or allowing more birds on larger property sizes. In the case of Portland, ME, the permitting of chickens is on a trial basis, which may be a good option if a city wants to reevaluate residential chicken keeping after a certain time frame. • 11 Locating and Understanding the Ordinances Of the 25 pro-chicken ordinances, very few were actually easy to locate. In most cases, pages of code had to be searched in order to find the regulation and even then the chicken ordinances were often vague, incomplete, or regulations were spread throughout multiple sections of the code. This is an issue that should be considered, as unclear or hard to find ordinances can only lead to increased non-compliance. The most easily accessible chicken ordinances were those specifically stated on city web pages, and those found through websites and literature from urban gardening organizations or community groups. One example of easily accessible ordinances is that of Rogers, Arkansas (Appendix Q. Their chicken ordinance is not only easily accessible directly from the city website, but it is also clear and comprehensive. A clearly stated and easily accessible ordinance allows resident to know how they can keep chickens within the limits of the law, which can reduce complaints and other issues related to non- compliance. Findings and Recommendations "Issues such as rodent control are a real concern and the ordinance can have a positive influence on keeping an already urban issue from being exacerbated any more than it already is". -Debra Lippoldt,Executive Director of Growing Gardens,Portland,OR' The original question for this paper was "What is a good urban chicken ordinance?" This was based on the idea of examining a variety of ordinances and then singling out those that were better than most and could serve as an example. After having conducted the analysis however, the question was changed to "What are the good components and considerations that make up a just and functional urban chicken ordinance?" There is no superior"one size fits all"ordinance to regulate urban chickens, as each city has different physical, environmental, social, and political needs. Although each ordinance will be different from one city to the next, a pro-chicken ordinance should be built upon the following considerations: 'Lippoldt,Debra.Executive Director of Growing Gardens,Portland,OR. Personal Correspondence on April 8,2008. 12 • ■ It satisfies the needs of most stakeholder groups and acknowledges that some stakeholders on both sides of the issue will be unwilling to compromise ■ It does not discriminate against certain populations, such as those of lower incomes who can not afford high permitting fees, or those with smaller property sizes ■ It allows for flexibility and provides choice, such as giving chicken keepers the right to choose their own coop design and building materials ■ It allows for citizen input and participation in the ordinance forming process to assure that the ordinance fits the needs of, and is supported by the community ■ It recognizes the role chickens can play in developing a more sustainable urban environment ■ It recognizes the importance of the ordinance being clearly stated and easily accessible to the public, which will help ensure compliance and reduce violations. The general considerations above are a good compliment to the specific allowances that each municipality chooses to fit its needs and that of its citizens. These specifics however can be more difficult to choose and looking to other cities as examples can provide insight into the best possible choices. The evaluation of 25 different chicken ordinances showed a wide spectrum of choices that municipalities have made in the regulating of chickens. Looking at the number of chickens permitted, for example, cities ranged anywhere from 2 chickens to unlimited chickens. Only allowing for 2 chickens may not be an ideal choice, as they are social creatures and if one were to become ill an die, only one chicken would be left. Two chickens also do not produce enough eggs for a larger sized family. On the other hand, allowing for unlimited chickens may mean increased nuisance enforcement, or allowing for that many chickens may be met with increased public opposition. Often the average allowances found(not the most extremes) are the best choices of an example regulation for other cities to look to when considering the formation of their own chicken ordinance. In the case of the cities evaluated, the most common allowance was 4 to 6 birds, which can provide enough eggs for a family and does not highly increase the potential for nuisances. It also allows for a more sustained population if a bird becomes ill and dies. 13 • Another example of the middle ground being a good option would be permitting and fees for keeping chickens. In some cities there were high fees for permitting, while in others no fee or permit was required. A few cities, which only required permits and fees if you have over a certain number of birds, show a good middle ground for how to permit chickens. That model allows for citizens to keep a certain number of chickens without added costs, while also creating revenue for enforcement and regulation when people choose to exceed that amount. Many cities are concerned over increased costs if chicken keeping is legalized, and this is one way to alleviate those concerns while still allowing citizens to keep chickens. In some of the regulatory themes, such as in the examples above, the middle ground does provide a choice which can alleviate concerns while still allowing for the keeping of chickens. Other regulatory themes, such as the slaughtering of chickens, may come down to more of a yes of no answer, as was seen in many of the cities. In either case, if a city is going to adopt a pro-chicken ordinance, the most important part is to first allow for the keeping of chickens, with the understanding that the ordinance can be revisited and changed at a future time. Allowing for the keeping of chickens is the best way to see if the concerns surrounding chicken keeping ever come to fruition, and the ordinance can then be adjusted accordingly. In many cases, cities adopt a more restrictive ordinance as that is what will pass public approval and city council. Then as time passes with few complaints or nuisances,those regulations become more relaxed and tailored specifically to the needs of the city and its residents. Conclusions "It seems that if we want to be a town that does its part for sustainability, this is something we ought to consider.I think we want to allow folks to use their good judgment and move toward more sustainable food practices." -Mayor John Engen,Missoula,MT 8 Many cities and towns are now looking at how they can be more sustainable, and allowing urban chickens is one step towards that goal of increased sustainability. Not S Moore,Michael. Urban Chickens Scratching up a Controversy in Missoula. Available online at http://www.missoula.conVnews/node/226 14 e. only can backyard chickens provide residents with a fresh and important food source, but they also bring about an increased awareness of our relationship to the food cycle. By forming a just and well thought out pro-chicken ordinance, cities can allow citizens the right to keep chickens while also addressing the concerns of other stakeholder groups. With that said, city councils should approach the issue of urban chicken keeping with a "how"rather than a"yes" or"no", as a growing list of pro-chicken cities across the nation shows that it can be done successfully. • 15 Y References (References for 25 City Ordinances: See Appendix B) CBC News. Halifax to Study Chickens in Cities. Available online at http://www.cbc.ca/consumer/story/2008/02/12/chicken-report.html Harrison-Noonan, Dennis. Urban chicken keeper, Madison, Wisconsin. Interviewed on April 8, 2008. Just Food. City Chicken Project. City Chicken Guide. Information available online at http://www.justfood.org/cityfarms/chickens/ Kunselman, Steve. City Councilor(ward 3)Ann Arbor, Michigan. Interviewed on April 29, 2008. Kriese, Thomans. Urban chicken keeper, Redwood City, CA. Personal correspondence on April 28, 2008. His coverage of urban chicken ordinances is available online at http://myurbanchickens.blogspot.com/ Lippoldt, Debra. Executive Director of Growing Gardens, Portland, OR. Personal Correspondence on April 8, 2008. • Medley, Ann and Jonathan Stumph. Video: Missoula Squabbles Over Urban Chickens. Available online at http://www.newwest.net/city/article/missoulas_urban_chicken_ squabble/C8/L8/ Moore, Michael. Urban Chickens Scratching up a Controversy in Missoula. . Available online at http://www.missoula.com/news/node/226 16 e Appendix A 25 Ordinances Analyzed City/State #of birds Roosters Permit/ Enclosure Nuisance Slaughter Property line Details or unique permitted allowed permit cost required clause permitted restrictions regulations Los Angeles, unclear only if 100 unclear unclear Yes unclear 20 ft from owners CA ft from home,35 ft from neighbors neighbors Rogers,AK 4 No $5/yr Yes Yes inside only 25 ft from neighbors house Keywest,FL unclear Yes None Yes Yes No No Can't use droppings as fertilizer,feed must be stored in rat proof containers Topeka,KS unclear unclear unclear Yes Yes unclear 50 ft from neighbors house South 6 No $25/yr Yes, Yes unclear Yes On trial basis till Portland,ME building November 2008,only permit 20 permits issued till re uiredyearly evaluation Madison,W I 4 No $6/yr Yes Yes No 25 ft from neighbors house New York, No limit No Yes No Yes unclear No NY Albuquerque, 15 1 per None No Yes Yes No NM household Portland,OR 3 without unclear $31 onetime Yes Yes unclear unclear permit fee for 4+ Seattle,WA 3 unclear unclear unclear Yes unclear 10 ft from property 1 additional chicken per line 1,000 sq ft of property above minimum Spokane,WA 1 per unclear unclear unclear unclear unclear 90 ft from property Chickens allowed in 2,000 sq ft line multi-family zoned areas of land San Antonio, property unclear unclear unclear unclear unclear 20 ft minimum 5 birds allowed 20 ft TX line from another from home, 12 birds at dependent dwelling 50 ft,50 birds at 150 ft Honolulu,HI 2 unclear unclear unclear unclear unclear unclear Oakland,CA unclear No unclear unclear unclear unclear 20 ft minimum from another dwelling St.Louis,MO 4 max. unclear $40 permit unclear unclear unclear unclear without for more than permit 4 birds San Diego, 25 unclear unclear unclear Yes unclear 50 ft from Feed must be stored in CA neighbors house rat proof container San Jose,CA dependent only permit Yes unclear unclear Ranges from 0 to <15 ft=0 birds allowed, on coop to roosters< needed for 6 50 ft,determines 15 to 20 ft=4 birds,etc, property 4 months or more birds #of birds up to 50 ft=25 birds line old Austin,TX unclear unclear unclear unclear unclear Yes 50 ft from neighbors house Memphis,TN unclear unclear unclear Yes Yes Yes unclear Feed must be stored in rat proof container Ft.Worth,TX based on unclear No Yes Yes unclear 50 ft from <1/2 acre=12 birds, lot size neighbors house >1/2 acre=25 birds Baltimore, 4 unclear Must register Yes Yes unclear 25 ft from Coops must be mobile MD with animal neighbors house to prevent waste build control and up,minimum 2 sq De t of A ft/bird, Charlotte,NC based on unclear $40/yr Yes Yes unclear 25 ft from property minimum 4 sq.ft/bird, lot size line no more than 20/acre Missoula,MT 6 No $15 permit Yes Yes unclear 20 ft from Feed must be stored in neighbors house rat proof container Boise,ID 3 No unclear Yes unclear unclear unclear San 4 Unclear No Yes Yes unclear 20 feet from door Francisco, or window of CA residence 17 VF • Appendix B Sources for 25 Ordinances City/State Source for Ordinance Los Angeles, CA Los Angeles Animal Services. http://www.laanimalservices.org/permitbook.pdf Rogers, AK Ordinance No. 06-100 http://www.rogersarkansas.com/clerk/chkordinance.asp Keywest, FL Part 2, Title 5 Section 62 www.keywestchickens.com/city Topeka, KS Section 18-291 www.municode.com South Portland, ME Chapter 3Article 2 Section 3 http://www.southportland.org/index.asp?Type=B_LIST&SEC=(93286E1 E-9FF8- 40D2-AC30-8840D E B23A29 Madison, WI http://www.madcitychickens.com/and www.municode.com New York, NY Just Food's City Chicken Project. City Chicken Guide. Information available online at http://www.justfood.org/cityfarms/chickens/ Albuquerque, NM City ordinance chapter 9, article 2, part 4, §9-2-4-3, c-3 http://www.amlegal.com/albuquergue_nm/ Portland, OR Ordinance 13.05.015 http://www.portlandonline.com/Auditor/index.cfm?c=28228#cid 13497 Seattle,WA Ordinance 122311 section 23 www.seattleurbanfarmco.com/chickens Spokane,WA Title 17 Chapter 17C.310 Section 17C.310.100 htt ://www.s okanecit .or /services/documents/smc/?Section=17C.310.100 San Antonio, TX Municipal code 10-112, Keeping of farm animals www.sanantonio.gov/animalcare/healthcode.asp • Honolulu, HI Chapter 7 Section 7-2.5 www.honolulu.gov/refs/roh Oakland, CA Ordinance 6.04.320 www.oaklandanimalservices.or St. Louis, MO Ordinance 62853-7 www.slpl.lib.mo.us/cco/code/data/tl 02001.ht m San Diego, CA Ordinance 42.0709 htt ://docs.sandie o. ov/municode/municodecha ter04/chO4artO2divisionO7. df San Jose, CA Ordinance 7.04.030, 140, &150 www.sanjoseanimals.com/ordinances/sjmc7.04.htm Austin, TX Title 3 Chapter 3-2 www.amlegal.com/Austin-nxt/gateway.dll/Texas/austin Memphis, TN Title 9Chapter 9-80-2, 9-68-7 http://municipalcodes.lexisnexis.com Ft.Worth, TX Section 11A-22a www.municode.com Baltimore, MD Baltimore City Health Code Title 2-106; Title 10, Subtitles 1 and 3 www.baltimorehealth.org/press/2007 02 02 AnimalRe s. df Charlotte, NC Section 3-102 http://www.charmeck.org/departments/animal+control/local+ordinances/permits/htm and municode.com Missoula, MT Ordinance Chapter 6 Section 6-12 ftp://www.ci.missoula.mt.us/Packets/Council/2007/2007-12- 17/Chicken Ordinance. df Boise, ID Chapter 6 Section 14 http://www.cityofboise.org/city_clerk/citycode/0614.pdf and http://home.centurytel.net/thecitychicken/chickenlaws.html San Francisco, CA San Francisco Municipal Health Code Section 37 • http://sfgov.org/site/acc_page.asp?id=5476 18 r s CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF HEALTH 120 WASHINGTON STREET 4"FLOOR Pub&Health Prevent.Promote.Protect. TEL. (978) 741-1800 FAx(978)745-0343 KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL lramdin&salem.com LARRY RAMDIN,RS/REHS,CHO,CP-FS MAYOR HEALTH AGENT Notice of Meeting You are hereby notified that the Salem Boar&-of Health will hold a special meeting, on September 24,2014 at 7.00 PM at the Salem Council on Aging Building, 5 Broad Street, Salem MA MEETING AGENDA 1. Call to order 2. Vote to reaffirm action taken at meeting of August 7,2104 to increase sale of Tobacco age from 18 to 21 3. Respond to Open meeting law complaint filed by Jennifer Lynch 4. N w business Larry Ramdin Health Agent •cc: Mayor Kimberley Driscoll,Board of Health, City Councilors Next regularly scheduled meeting is October 14,2014 at 7pm at City Hall Annex, 120 Washington Street Room 312. Know your rights under the open meeting law MGL chapter 30A ss. 18-25 and City Ordinance section 2-2028 through 2-2033 1014 SEP 22 P 12: 30 FILE # CITY CLERK, SALEM,M?8, This notice posted on "Official Bulletin Board" City Nall. Salem, Mass SEP 2 2 2014 at 1.� in accoruance with MGL Chap. 30A, Sections 18-25. i e CITY OF SALEM MASSACHUSETTS 10 BOARD OF HEALTH PublicHealth 120 WASHINGTON STREET,4" FLOOR Prevent.Promote.Protect. TEL. (978) 741-1800 FAx(978) 745-0343 KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL Iramdin@salem.com 4 Dr. Barbara Poremba Ed. D MPH MAYOR Chair, Board of Health September 24, 2014 Ms. Jennifer Lynch 38 Charles Street , Salem, MA 01970 Re: Open Meeting Law Complaint Concerning September 9, 2014 Board of Health Meeting Dear Ms. Lynch: We are in receipt of your complaint regarding the above-referenced meeting of the Board of Health, dated September 15, 2014. Upon receipt, a copy of the complaint was distributed to all members and within 14 days, on September 24, 2014, the Board of Health has reviewed the allegations and issues this response. The complaint makes two allegations: (1) Ahead of the September 9, 2014 Board of Health meeting, the draft regulations regarding backyard poultry keeping were not posted until 9 a.m. on the morning of the 7 p.m. meeting; and (2) that the public comment on the draft regulations was listed as item#6 on the agenda, but was moved up and addressed first. The complaint goes on to state that Following open commentary, the Chair asked the public to leave so the Board could consider the other agenda items. Some of the public stayed, and the BOH did address the reports and updates listed in the agenda. However, they went back to discussion of Regulation 5A at the end of the meeting. The majority of interested citizens had been dismissed and presumed the issue was set to rest, not to be discussed again. On our request, the Solicitor's Office has reviewed these allegations and determined that the Board's actions have not violated the Open Meeting Law. With respect to not providing a copy of the draft regulations, this action did not violate the Open Meeting Law or Article XIV of Chapter 2 of the City's Code of Ordinances as they only require that the agenda be posted 48 hours prior to the start of the public meeting and contain no requirement that proposed regulations or other documentation relating to an agenda item be available at the time of the noticing of the meeting. Of course, regardless of the letter of the law, the goal is to make such information available to the public as soon as practicable, which occurred in this case. As to the second allegation, the Board acknowledges revisiting the issue of the draft poultry keeping regulations later in the meeting after having informed the attendees that they had completed the discussion of the matter, as the Chair had not anticipated that it would come up later in the meeting for discussion. No action was taken concerning the matter during this re-visiting of the issue later in the meeting. As such, the Board did not violate the Open Meeting Law. This determination is consistent with a recent decision involving the Sturbridge Board of Health(OML 2014- 35), where the Attorney General declined to find a violation where the Board failed to follow the order and timing of the items listed in the agenda. The Attorney General's Office noted that • If a public body chooses to indicate times at which it anticipates different items of discussion to occur, the body should make reasonable efforts to honor such representations in the interest of government transparency and the logical expectations of attendees. Failure to do so, however, is not a violation of the Open Meeting Law. While we appreciate your efforts to ensure that the Open Meeting Law is being followed, we have determined based on the analysis above, that our actions with regard to the September 9, 2014 meeting are in compliance with its visions. Notwithstanding this determination, and in the interest of transparency and in our efforts to comply with the spirit as well as the letter of the law, the Board of Health will defer any vote on the proposed regulations until after allowing for additional public comment and discussion on the draft backyard poultry keeping regulations. Sincerely, Dr. Barbara Poremba, Chair Salem Board of Health cc: Office of the Attorney General, Division of Open Government • • The Commonwealth of Massachusetts _ Office of the Attorney General One Ashburton Place Boston,Massachusetts 02108 OPEN MEETING LAW COMPLAINT FORM Instructions for completing the Open Meeting Law Complaint Form The Office of the Attorney General's Division of Open Government is responsible for interpreting and enforcing the Open Meeting Law. Pursuant to G.L.c.30A,§23,the Open Meeting Law requires that complaints must first be filed with the public body that Is alleged to have committed the violation,prior to filing a complaint with the Attorney General. The complaint must be filed with the public body within 30 days of the alleged violation,or if the alleged open Meeting Law violation could not reasonably have been known at the time It occurred, then within 30 days of the date it should reasonably have been discovered. The complaint must set forth the circumstances which constitute the alleged violation,giving the public body an opportunity to remedy the alleged violation. Please complete the entire form,providing as much information as possible,to assist the public body in responding to your complaint. The Division of Open Government will not,and public bodies are not required to,Investigate anonymous complaints.You may attach additional materials to your complaint if necessary. The public body may request additional Information if necessary. For complaints alleging a violation of the Open Meeting Law by a local public body,you must file with the public body and file a copy with the clerk of the city or town where the alleged violation occurred. For complaints alleging a violation by a county,regional or state public body,you must file with the chair of the public body. If you are not satisfied with the action taken by the public body in response to your complaint,you may file a copy of your complaint with the Attorney General's Office 30 days after filing your complaint with the public body. The Attorney General's Office may decline to investigate a complaint that is filed with the Attorney General's Office more than 90 days after the alleged OML violation,unless an extension was granted to the public body or the complainant demonstrates good cause for the delay. The complaint must Include this form and any documents relevant to the alleged violation.A complaint may be filed either by mail or by hand: Office of the Attorney General Division of Open Government One Ashburton Place Boston,MA 02108 OPEN MEETING LAW COMPLAINT FORM Offlce of the Attorney General One Ashburton Place - Boston,MA 02108 Please note that all fields are required unless otherwise noted. Your Contact Information: First Name: Jennifer Last Name: Lynch Address: 38 Charles St City: Salem State: MA Zip Code:01970 Phone Number. +1 (978)810-1344 Ext. Email: lynch.sheehan@gmall.com Organization or Media Affiliation(if any): None Are you filing the complaint in your capacity as an Individual,representative of an organization,or media? (For statistical purposes only) 0 Individual Organization F1 Media Public Body that is the subject of this complaint: u City/Town ❑County 0 RegionaVDistrict State Name of Public Body(including city/ town,county or region,if applicable): Salem Board of Health Specific person(s),If any,you allege committed the violation: Date of alleged violation: Sep 9,2014 Page 1 Description of alleged violation: Desalbe the alleged violation that this complaint Is about.If you believe the alleged violation was intentional,please say so and include the reasons supporting your belief. Note:This text field has a maximum of 3000 characters. Backyard Poultry keeping Is currently under discussion in Salem,MA.A meeting to hear public comments on the draft regulations(Regulation 5A)was scheduled for 9 September 2014 at 7:OOPM.The regulations were posted on the BoH website I.e.,made publicly available)on 9 September 2014 at 9:42AM.This is in direct violation of the open meeting law,and did not give Interested citizens sufficient time to read and consider the proposed regulations.Furthermore, he Agenda(posted on 3 Sept.)listed public comment and discussion of Regulation 5A as agenda Item 6.The item was moved up during the meeting and addressed first.Following open commentary,the Chair asked the public to leave so the Board could consider the other agenda items.Some of the public stayed,and the BoH did address the reports and updates listed In the agenda.However,they went back to discussion of Regulation 5A at the end of the meeting.The majority of interested citizens had been dismissed and presumed the issue was set to rest,not to be discussed again.I believe this action is in violation of the spirit,if not the word,of an open meeting.The transparency of this public meeting was obfuscated. What action do you want the public body to take in response to your complaint? Note:This text field has a maximum of 500 characters. ^ The Salem Board of Health has been closed and dismissive to the public.I would like a formal investigation to the legality of their proceedings.The public should be aware of the concerns driving regulations,so they are able to refute or support the regulations as they are considered;in due time and with sufficient information. Review,sign,and submit your complaint I.Disclosure of Your Com Ip aunt. PublIc Record. Undermost circumstances,your complaint and any documents submitted with your complaint will be considered a public record and avallable to any member of the public upon request. In response to such a request,the AGO generally will not disclose your contact Information. II.Consulting With a Private Attarnev.The AGO cannot give you legal advice and Is not able to be your private attorney,but represents the public Interest. If you have any questions concerning your individual legal rights or responsibilities you should contact a private attorney. 111.Eu-bmKXw-QmRl@WsR1kFmh1k Body. The complaint must be flied first with the public body. If you have any questions,please contact the Division of Open Government by calling(61 n 963-2540 or by emall to openmeeting@state rna.us. By signing below,I acknowledge that I have read and understood the provisions aboveand certify that the information I have provided is true and correct to the best of my knowledge. ,,e Signed: Dateo_15 Se.,)t- For'Use 8�public Body _ For(1.te i3yAG0;:; Aatefieceivedb�PutiticBody; DaieRecetved'6 AGOi • Page 2 Heather Lyons • From: Larry Ramdin Sent: Wednesday,August 06, 2014 3:12 PM To: David Greenbaum; Heather Lyons Subject: FW: Open Meeting Law/Videotaping Sincerely Larry Ramdin Health Agent Salem Board of Health 120 Washington Street Salem MA 01970 978-741-1800 (office) 978-745-0343(Fax) ..._......... From: Victoria Caldwell Sent: Wednesday, August 06, 2014 3:11 PM To: bbporemba@hotmail.com Cc: Larry Ramdin; Beth Rennard Subject: Open Meeting Law/Videotaping Barbara: Nice to talk with you today. Below is the text of the Open Meeting Law allowing videotaping by members of the public: Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 30A,Section 20: (e) After notifying the chair of the public body, any person may make a video or audio recording of an open session of a meeting of a public body, or may transmit the meeting through any medium, subject to reasonable requirements of the chair as to the number, placement and operation of equipment used so as not to interfere with the conduct of the meeting. At the beginning of the meeting the chair shall inform other attendees of any such recordings. This provision was changed as of July 1,2010—the old version of the law only expressly permitted audio taping. Let me know if you have any further questions. Vickie Victoria Caldwell, Esq. Assistant City Solicitor Salem City Hall 93 Washington Street Salem, MA 01970 978-619-5634 978-744-1279 fax Larry Ramdin From: Victoria Caldwell Sent: Wednesday, September 24, 2014 3:06 PM To: barbara poremba Cc: Larry Ramdin; Beth Rennard Subject: BOH Meeting -- 9/24/14 Barbara: Just wanted to go over what is going to happen tonight. 1. In terms of the vote to reaffirm, I would state something along the lines of-- Questions were raised after the Board's vote on the Tobacco 21 Regulations regarding Board members not being accurately informed as to the right to abstain from voting. I want to let Board members as well as the members of the public know that any member may abstain from voting on any issue. With that in mind, do 1 have a motion to reaffirm the action taken at the meeting of August 7, 2014 to increase the age of individuals to whom tobacco may be sold from 18 to 21? Asecond? [Then take a roll call vote.] 2. As to the Open Meeting Law Complaint— Our other order of business tonight is a review of the Open Meeting Law Complaint filed by Ms.Jennifer Lynch. While the Solicitor's office has informed us that the complaint does not make out any violations of the law, we do want to make sure that our process is as open as possible and avoid any miscommunication. In this regard, we will be allowing for additional discussion and comment with regard to the backyard poultry keeping draft regulations prior to any action taken by the Board. We also have to notify the complainant of our action with regard to the complaint. The Solicitor's office has prepared a letter for the Board's signature that will be sent to the complainant and to the Attorney General's Office. Do 1 have a motion to adopt this letter as the response of the Board to the Opening Meeting Law Complaint of Jennifer Lynch filed on September 15,2014? Second? Hope this helps! Vickie Victoria Caldwell, Esq. Assistant City Solicitor Salem City Hall 93 Washington Street Salem, MA 01970 978-619-5634 978-744-1279 fax This message and the documents attached to it, if any, are intended only for the use of the addressee and may contain information that is PRIVILEGED and CONFIDENTIAL and/or may contain ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT. If you are not the intended recipient,you are hereby notified that any dissemination of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you V a have received this communication in error, please delete all electronic copies of this message and attachments thereto, if any, and destroy any hard copies you may have created and notify me immediately.Thank you. 0 )-,- CITY OF SALEM BOARD OF HEALTH MEETING MINUTES September 24, 2014 DRAFT MEMBERS PRESENT: Dr. Barbara Poremba, Chair, Dr. Shama Alam Dr. Danielle Ledoux, Gayle Sullivan & Paul Kirby OTHERS PRESENT: Larry Ramdin Health Agent TOPIC DISCUSSION/ACTION 1. Call to Order 7:03pm 2. Vote to reaffirm action taken Dr. Poremba indicated "questions were raised after the Board's vote on the at meeting of August 7, 2014 to Tobacco 21 Regulations regarding Board members not being accurately increase sale of Tobacco age informed as to the right to abstain from voting. I want to let Board members from 18 to 21 as well as the members of the public know that any member may abstain from voting on any issue. With that in mind, do I have a motion to reaffirm the action taken at the meeting of August 7, 2014 to increase the age of individuals to whom tobacco may be sold from 18 to 21?" G Sullivan motioned to reaffirm the vote on August 7, 2014 to increase the age to purchase tobacco from 18 to 21 in the city of Salem Dr. Alam 2nd Brief discussion over reaffirming the vote and whether one had to vote the same way as they had previously or can change their vote. Members were advised that it is a new vote and they can vote any way they wish. Roll Call: Gayle Sullivan -Yes Dr. Shama Alam- Abstain Dr. Danielle Ledoux- Yes Paul Kirby -No Dr. Barbara Poremba - Yes Motion carries 3-2 3. Respond to Open meeting law Dr. Poremba the Chair said "Our other order of business tonight is a review complaint filed by Jennifer of the Open Meeting Law Complaint filed by Ms. Jennifer Lynch. While Lynch the Solicitor's office has informed us that the complaint does not make out any violations of the law, we do want to make sure that our process is as open as possible and avoid any miscommunication. In this regard, we will be allowing for additional discussion and comment with regard to the backyard poultry keeping draft regulations prior to any action taken by the Board. We also have to notify the complainant of our action with regard to the • complaint. The Solicitor's office has prepared a letter for the Board's signature that will be sent to the complainant and to the Attorney General's Office. Do I have a motion to adopt this letter as the response of the Board to the Open Meeting Law Complaint of Jennifer Lynch filed on September 15, 2014?" Dr. Alam motioned to adopt the letter as a response from the Board to the Open Meeting Law complaint of Jennifer Lynch. P Kirby 2"d. Unanimously approved •New Business No New Business P Kirby motioned to adjourn the meeting. G Sullivan 2nd Unanimously approved Adjourned 7:35pm Respectfully submitted, Heather Lyons-Paul Clerk of the Board Next regularly scheduled meeting is October 14 2014 at 7 m g y g � p At City Hall Annex, 120 Washington Street,Room 311 Salem. • •