TO: Board of Supervisors
FROM: Sheryl L. Bratton - County Counsel
REPORT BY: Rebekah Reynolds - Deputy County Counsel
SUBJECT: Adopt an Ordinance amending Napa County Code Chapter 6.18 (Keeping of Roosters) and Section 18.08.040 (Agriculture) of Chapter 18.08 (Definitions)
RECOMMENDATION
title
Adopt an Ordinance amending Napa County Code Chapter 6.18 (Keeping of Roosters) to address concerns regarding cockfighting and avian disease, as well as Section 18.08.040 (Agriculture) of Chapter 18.08 (Definitions) relating to the raising and keeping of roosters. (No Fiscal Impact)
body
BACKGROUND
In 2013, the Napa County Board of Supervisors adopted Chapter 6.18 (Keeping of Roosters) of the Napa County Code to regulate the keeping of roosters within unincorporated Napa County. The purpose of that ordinance was to eliminate the potential for public nuisance, and for the protection of the health and safety of the residents of Napa County residents. However, the large numbers of roosters that are allowed under the current ordinance have created challenges for the County to effectively address ongoing concerns related to illegal cockfighting operations, avian influenza, and quality of life for Napa County Residents.
Cockfighting is a form of animal cruelty in which roosters are forced to fight, often to the death, with sharpened metal implements attached to their legs. In addition to being illegal under state law, cockfighting operations are often linked to other criminal activities such as drug trafficking, illegal gambling, firearm offenses, and violence against individuals. The current ordinance allows for significantly more roosters than neighboring jurisdictions or nearby towns such as Solano, American Canyon, Marin, and Sonoma. As a result, Napa may be unintentionally attracting individuals engaged in illegal cockfighting operations.
Avian influenza is a viral infection affecting the domestic and wild birds. Outbreaks of avian influenza can have a devastating and deadly impact on poultry farms throughout California, wiping out entire flocks within a matter of days.
In addition, large scale rooster-keeping facility impacts can extend beyond property lines and adversely affect the quality of life of nearby residents. Rooster-keeping facilities, especially when operated on a commercial or semi-commercial scale, can create waste management and runoff concerns when located near streams, creeks, or other environmentally sensitive areas.
The proposed ordinance was introduced at the Board of Supervisors’ December 9, 2025, regular meeting. The Board, by unanimous vote, introduced the ordinance and indicated its intention to adopt the ordinance with modifications. The following strike-through and underscore demonstrate the modifications made to the draft ordinance:
6.18.045 Exemption.
A. The limitation from subsection 6.18.030 A, shall not apply to entities who have an application for exemption to rooster ordinance which has been approved by the Agricultural Commissioner’s Office and the Sherriff’s Department in their sole discretion.
B. The following entities are eligible to apply for an exemption: (1) A person who keeps or raises roosters for purposes of food production if the person is subject to local, state, or federal inspection laws or regulations; (2) A public or private school registered with the State Department of Education; (3) A government-operated animal shelter; (4) A 4-H, Future Farmers of America (FFA), or Grange project, if the 4-H, FFA, or Grange has provided written approval for the project to the person keeping or raising the roosters, or a 4-H, FFA or Grange project leader who is raising roosters in support of such projects; or (5) A person who owns and breeds poultry for the purpose of lawful exhibition in accordance with accepted poultry raising practices and all laws and regulations governing exhibition; or (6) A person who keeps or raises roosters that were originally kept or raised for purposes of food production under (1), youth projects under (2), or lawful exhibition under (5) but has since retired its roosters from these purposes because of age or health.
C. Any person seeking exemption pursuant to this Section shall allow an onsite inspection of the premises by an enforcement officer as defined in Chapters 1.20 and 1.28 upon demand to verify initial and continued eligibility for this exemption.
D. Applicants who have submitted an application by February 1, 2026, may maintain their existing flock while their application is pending.
E. Failure of any person seeking this exemption to comply with any of the provisions of this chapter or applicable law, shall constitute good cause for the denial of any approval, either original or renewal, or for its revocation.
F. An exemption approved under this Section is valid for one year from the date issued and remains valid unless cancelled by the applicant or the Agricultural Commissioner (the parties) with 30 days written notice to the other party. If an approved applicant desires to increase the number of roosters per parcel, the applicant must submit a new application. The exemption may be renewed each year by the Agricultural Commissioner.
Requested Action: Adopt the proposed ordinance amending Chapter 6.18 (Keeping of Roosters) and Section 18.08.040 (Agriculture) of Chapter 18.08 (Definitions) as set forth in the item attachment.
FISCAL IMPACT
|
Is there a Fiscal Impact? |
No |
|
Is it Mandatory or Discretionary? |
Discretionary |
|
Discretionary Justification: |
If Chapter 6.18 and Section 18.08.040 are not amended, the County will have less tools available for addressing illegal cockfighting and avian flu. |
|
Consequences if not approved: |
The County would have to follow existing ordinance provisions and state law, which may reduce the ability to address illegal or inappropriate rooster-keeping activities, including cockfighting. |
|
Additional Information |
Strategic Initiative: Preserve Napa County’s Agricultural Legacy. |
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: General Rule. It can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility the proposed action may have a significant effect on the environment and therefore CEQA is not applicable. [See Guidelines for the Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act, 14 CCR 15061(b)(3)].