We are writing in regard to a proposed change to the language defining “poultry” in Greenfield.

The Greenfield Planning Board is proposing a change to the current language that would restrict the ability of residents who own fewer than  5 acres to possess a rooster in their flock of chickens. The current law only prohibits those residents with fewer than 5 acres to “(10) poultry,” not making a distinction between the sex of the poultry. The proposal is to amend this language to state “(10) poultry, not to include roosters.”

The explanation we received when attending the Planning Board’s Nov. 16 meeting was that this current language has been “interpreted for 20 years to mean no roosters.” The town’s interpretation of the law as it is written is thus factually incorrect, as “poultry” refers to both sexes.

We should not make an effort to “add clarity” to a law because the city has misinterpreted it for 20 years.

The newly proposed rule also continues to underline the city’s misunderstanding of “poultry,” as poultry refers to all types of fowl. Would male chickens be banned (roosters), while male quail (cocks), for example, be allowed? So much for the clarity.

Most importantly, male poultry play an essential part in a flock, most notably protecting the hens and, as the birds and bees do, producing more chickens to keep a flock going. A flock of 10 chickens generally accommodates one rooster (ratio matters). We would encourage the city to change the language to state, “(10) poultry, and in the case of chickens, one rooster.” This is accurate, specific, and frankly already rather restrictive for a city that claims itself to be a “right to farm” community.

John and Victoria Richardson

Greenfield