Hamilton won’t budgie on city’s four-pet limit
Budgie lovers are in a flap over a Hamilton pet bylaw they say is turning dozens of respectable and long-standing bird keepers into scofflaws.
Members of the decades-old Hamilton and District Budgerigar Society Inc. showed up at a planning meeting Tuesday to appeal for an exemption from a city animal control bylaw that infamously limits households to no more than four pets.
The limit introduced as part of a bylaw overhaul in 2012 is already unpopular with owners of cats, dogs and other more traditional pets. But it is belatedly ruffling feathers now with avian aficionados.
Avian hobbyists routinely keep between 40 and 120 birds, depending on whether they participate in bird shows, said society vice-president Scott Aird.
“For that, you need at least 100 birds,” said Aird, whose relatively modest “chatter” of 60 budgies earned the wrath of the bylaw department a few months ago and resulted in both a $125 fine and an upcoming December court date.
Aird said the local budgie group disagreed with the bylaw limit back when it was approved, but the implications didn’t sink in until a bylaw officer showed up on his doorstep — ultimately forcing him to relocate his beloved budgies to the deliberately unidentified home of a fellow birdkeeper.
“We’ve been here (as a society) for 70 years,” Aird said. “We’re law- abiding. But it is impossible for us to meet the letter of this law.”
Urban budgie owners in Hamilton represent hundreds, probably thousands, of illegal feathered friends. (Rural residents aren’t subject to the same pet limitations.)
Aird added there are likely hundreds more owners of small birds, such as finches and cockatiels, flying under the bylaw radar. (There used to be a separate Cage Bird Society of Hamilton with dozens of members, but it folded.)
City licensing director Ken Leendertse acknowledged there may be a lot of illegally housed birds out there — but so far, they haven’t prompted a bylaw crackdown.
He said there were 51investigations last year into allegations of pet-heavy households, with four involving birds and the lion’s share related to cats.
Aird was unlucky enough to face the only budgie-related charge laid in 2016, out of a total of 19 related to the pet limit.
“It’s not proactive. These investigations are generated by complaints,” he said.
Aird acknowledged his bylaw visit was prompted by a noise complaint. But he argued despite the name, a “chatter” of indoor budgies is less noisy than say, four legal macaw parrots or four excitable dogs in the backyard.
“Our birds are contained, they’re largely indoors in homes, garages or specially constructed outbuildings,” he said.
The group asked Tuesday for a bylaw exemption for all “small-cage birds,” arguing the city has already granted an exception for owners of racing pigeons. Councillors received the presentation, but didn’t ask for a report or suggest a motion.
That leaves budgie lovers ponder- ing a plea for help from national avian organizations.
Pigeon owners appeared to benefit from lobbying by the Canadian Racing Pigeon Union when council was considering an outright urban ban in 2013.
The union memorably argued to councillors that pigeon owners raised “athletes,” not pets. Council ultimately grandfathered existing urban racing pigeon keepers but enacted strict rules on numbers and bird housing.
Feathers also flew over the bylaw in 2012 when councillors considered a vocal appeal from backyard farmers to allow urban hens. They ultimately chickened out on the study.
Aird argued there is already a precedent for council to follow. “If you can do it for pigeons, I feel like it’s not unreasonable to consider an exception for us,” he said.