KEEPING OF FOWLS.

Dominion, Volume 2, Issue 418, 29 January 1909, Page 6

KEEPING OF FOWLS.

■ : ';- '!/.:■ '■;'A.;NEW ; .By-MW..-: , : -- -'■■■■ ■'' '. The: Public Health Committee"'of the City Council■ presented last evening a'draft-.by-law .providing: that-rio poultry■•shaU-be.kept inany part'of the city! except in a properly-constructed poultry house,: with a.rainprdof roof and.'properly .-.graded concrete or; asphalt floor,:.and with' a -suitably; enclosed, run or 'scratching' ground .'attached.' Each, poultry-house must be at : least 15ft/ from any 1 dwelling'or street, and .the .fence ■ of,-the run must be , at least, loft.' from- a dwelling and 6ft. from'' the "adjoining premises'or-street.. In: the event of a nuisance being caused,' the owner must' take steps pre-. scribed by the. Inspector of,; Nuisances.- Poul-try-houses must ',be lime : washed once in "three months and -runs', cleaned-, weekly,.: and. sanded ; pr: ! limed.'- .'-,"■.'-.' .'..-.•.''.. ' ' . , .. •The only -clause- which, provoked 'discussion* was clause 2, requiring any person' who wished , to ;<keep -more than ■ 50 : head-'of -poultry":to obtain the:.permission of' the council.- ■ ■Councillor. Smith moved: the'eicision 'of : this olause. .He thought the' other "requirements ■ vere' ■ so•' .stringent that the granting':■ of ■ permission, for keeping 50 fowls would hot be necessary.. -.'. . , ':-, ; •-.■-. ;-.. .;;■ ■■.:. :.::-,;..",..,.- ■ Councillor. Hiridmarsh seconded the amendment. -There was in some suburbs'a-good'deal of unocoupie'd J land, where there could be no objeotipn'to poultry-keepingl • ■ ' ':■. .'■; ■'■■:. ■Councillors:-Get,.a permit! , ! . •■';., ,r ■Cquncillor-Hindmarsh:-And ; ; that : might take nx: months. It can'• only be' given by resolution of ithe > council. I 'believe' in-igiving people" » little. liberty/ , ~,',.'■ . ' , ~The'.-Mayor,said;the'clause, was-the outcome, of' objections by'.a-dozen persons to a particular-run,'-though it: had been "proved to: the satisfaction' of: the- council's officers' that it was' no nuisance, and the' Health -Department' could find nothing 'objectionable in it. 'It would be a,pity-if thecouncil could not ■'frame; efficient' genetal.regulations, , and: obviate th'e necessity of,-.spending, hours 'at its.meetings in deciding such.questions. . ~ .'. ■':,:'-,.. . .. • ■■...-• °- Councillor : V -Luke; supported.-. the • amendment, : and specially pleaded-the interests of outlvins districts." ■-' •■'■;.■-.•■:■:/■/■■ -■■;... ■.■.**:° -Councillor Pisher. opposed' the ; amendment.The committee had visited , the-yard "alluded to.by the.Mayor.. • outlyin? suburbs would be granted without difficulty _ :C6unoillqr MTjaren.said that people who lived in tK,e vioinity ■ of, a ■particular: fowlyard' were annpyed by the. noise,':'and certainly suffered' urhealth.'" '■:■:■'".'■ ■ ,: ■ . ' ' "'.. Councillor Shirtcliffe said: the clause was inserted, to'enable theicpuncil to:deal wifh.fowlruns'in relation to the', density of -population in- the vicinity. The fowlVun that had been alluded to; was in a- congested district. ,It was properly kept, but the officers of the'council i were of opinion that it,.should not be there. The council' would need,.tn:spend but very;little time in dealing -vv-ith applications for permits " Thfl amendment "was defeated, and the report as submitted was adopted by seven votes to four.