El Cerrito Takes Up Backyard Animal Slaughter

The El Cerrito City Council's agenda tonight, Monday, includes the controversial issue of whether do-it-yourself animal slaughter should be banned under the city's new law allowing residents to keep some farm animals.

With the national debate heating up on backyard animal slaughter, the El Cerrito City Council may find itself under a brighter spotlight tonight, Monday, when the issue comes back to the council agenda.

The city spent 2-1/2 years discussing, debating and drafting a revised animals ordinance that the City Council . The new law, which makes it much easier for residents to keep a few chickens and a beehive, and somewhat easier to have a small pig and goats, did not accede to requests that it include a ban on do-it-yourself slaughter of the animals.

The council, however, , which is now back before the panel tonight.

The issue meanwhile has been generating considerable debate. A Feb. 2  essay on the Mother Jones magazine Web site, "Are 'DIY Slaughter Hobbyists' Destroying Your City?," takes issue with Bay Area critics of backyard slaughter.

In the national arena, a column in The Atlantic magazine in September, "The Locavore Movement's Mistake: Deregulating Animal Slaughter," created a stir with its strong condemnation of DIY slaughter, citing cases in San Francisco and Oakland as examples of inhumane backyard slaughter.

The City of Oakland is among the cities grappling with the issue and is  considering backyard slaughter regulations for its urban farming law. "Oakland has devoted considerable employee time to researching the issues involved in a backyard slaughter ban or regulation, as well as holding several public hearings and workshops," says the El Cerrito city staff report for tonight's council meeting. (The report is attached to this article.)

Some council members had earlier indicated support for a slaughter ban, but City Attorney Sky Woodruff told the panel that a ban would be difficult to craft because it cannot interfere with freedom of speech and religious expression by banning religious conduct that includes animal sacrifice. Instead the law passed by the council incorporated Woodruff's recommendation that the measure include regulations on health, sanitation and nuisances that would address the potential impacts of animal slaughter.

Two weeks after the law was first approved, when the measure came up for a second reading on Nov. 21, a half dozen slaughter opponents, including members of Oakland-based Neighbors Opposed to Backyard Slaughter, spoke during public comments and to the new law. Slaughter opponents argued that a ban can be made consistent with Constitutional protections of speech and religion.

The council at that meeting approved the new law, effective April 1, without a slaughter ban, while noting that a ban could be added later. It asked staff to report back with more information on how the city might adopt a ban if it chooses to, including potential legal liability and enforcement options.

Tonight's agenda item, which represents the staff's response, consists largely of a 10-page memo from Woodruff (included in the staff report attached to this article), recommending that the council "determine its policy objectives with regard to regulation of backyard animal slaughter."

Woodruff's memo notes that the new animals ordinance "was written to allow citizens to raise a limited number of animals (such as four chickens and one beehive; or goats and pigs with a administrative use permit) on private property for the purpose of consuming those animals and/or their by-products. One question the Council may wish to consider is whether banning slaughter for the purpose of consumption would be at odds with the purpose the of the Animal Ordinance to allow the ability of citizens to raise animals expressly for food production."

Among the issues to be weighed include the expense of slaughtering animals outside the city and whether commerical slaughtering would necessarily be more humane than backyard slaughter, the memo says.

Also requiring consideration are the extensive time and cost of crafting a ban that could withstand legal challenge and of defending it if it were challenged, Woodruff says.

He concludes:

"In reaching our previous recommendation to use existing (or slightly modified) nuisance abatement tools to address undesirable effects of slaughter, we assumed that the Council would want to avoid incidental restrictions on religious and other expressive conduct; limit the time and resources devoted to this area of regulation; and avoid or significantly reduce the risks of litigation. If those assumptions were incorrect, and the Council's priorities are different, then a different approach would be appropriate. Otherwise, we continue to recommend that using the nuisance abatement approach would be the most effective means of dealing with animal slaughter, at least until there is some evidence that the practice is being used widely in the City to the detriment of the public health, safety, and welfare."

For more background on this topic, you can see our past stories by clicking "El Cerrito Animals Ordinance" next to Related Topics below this article. For alerts on future stories on the issue, click the "Keep me posted" button below the article.

Deborah February 07, 2012 at 05:52 AM
Interesting. I didn't get that impression at all from this article. All of the individuals I know who are raising small farm animals in their urban settings are well informed about the care of their animals, and very careful about maintaining good neighborly relations. From all my research I don't any public health problems arising unless you have a very irresponsible homeowner... and they can create public health issues with owning cats or dogs.
Deborah February 07, 2012 at 05:56 AM
That's quite a vivid bit of imagery you have there. Where did that come from? Most El Cerrito homes have fairly private backyards. I can't imagine an urban farmer killing one of their animals within visibility of neighbors either. And urban farmers learn about how to kill animals (if they raise them for meat, as many do not) in humane ways. As a matter of fact, they seem to have great reverence toward the animal. Most people don't think twice about the meat product they eat at dinner.
Valerie Snider February 07, 2012 at 06:37 AM
Deborah, it's those "fairly private backyards" that concern me. Cruel and inhumane acts can take place in a private setting. Just ask anyone who has worked as an animal rescuer. They have plenty of horror stories.
Annamarie Torpey February 07, 2012 at 07:37 AM
Valerie, that sounds more like an argument against keeping pets of any kind. If someone is going to commit horrible acts of cruelty in the privacy of their own backyard, I don't see how a ban on slaughter would stop them in any case. Beating your dog is a crime, but as you pointed out, people still do it. I agree with Deborah that the majority of people interested in urban farming have made themselves well aware of humane and sanitary practices - the urban farming movement is about a connection with our food sources, not about having an excuse to kill things at home. I'd much prefer my children learn about the entire lifecycle of a food animal, and respect the living creatures who provide us with our sources of protein, rather than only see plastic-wrapped, sanitized bits of ground beef from the market, making no connection to the creature it came from and its life and death. Raising animals for food is seen by many as a way to teach respect for animals and what they can give us, and respect for the environment as a whole, our place in the foodchain, our stewardship of the earth, our responsibility as consumers... I'm not 100% in favor of allowing backyard slaughter, I have yet to look into all the facts I'd need for an informed decision, but I'm finding the level of religious intolerance and fear-based assumptions and leaps of logic in this thread quite frightening.
Valerie Snider February 07, 2012 at 04:31 PM
No, Annamarie, it's not an argument against keeping pets. It's an argument in favor of a ban on the slaughter of animals in a residential setting. People don't keep pets for the purpose of slaughter. As for religious intolerance, are you in favor of any act performed in the name of religion? I support freedom of religion, but I draw the line at cruelty.


More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something
See more »