Speckles is one lucky rooster

By Joe Lafiandra

I read everything, which include obscure legal notices in local and national papers. Most people aren’t interested in these notices of abandoned bicycles, foster care plans or Virginia ABC license approvals. I have actually found money for other people in those lists of unclaimed funds. I just can’t help it but, I read these notices for pleasure and sometimes for the stories that they may generate for this column.

Such was the case for a legal notice that caught my eye recently, it was a notice for a hearing concerning the seizure of one chicken. Yes, you read it correctly, “Notice of hearing, seizure of one chicken (rooster)”. This notice was duly printed in a local newspaper on June 10, 2021. 

The details are as follows: “In accordance with the authority set forth in 3.3-6569 of the Code of Virginia, Monday, June 7, 2021, the Loudoun County Department of Animal Services seized one approximately 8 month old male, white, with brown speckles, chicken that was found abandoned at 35644 Appalachian Trail Lane, Round Hill, VA 20141. A hearing to determine whether the chicken has been abandoned, cruelly treated or has not been provided with adequate care, will be held on Wednesday, June 16, 2021 at 10:00 AM in the General District Court of Loudoun County, located at 18 E. Market Street, Leesburg, Virginia 20176.

The chicken did have a name, as I learned later but, his name was withheld apparently because he was a juvenile. Just kidding.

Well, this is something you don’t see every day, at least I didn’t, so I decided to investigate further by reading the relevant Code of Virginia section cited, and going to the hearing.

Upon entering the court room before the hearing started, I spotted four heavily armed animal control officers in a small anti-room and proceeded to discuss the case with them. They were all very professional, and seemed to be genuinely interested in the welfare of animals. One of the officers had a petition for adoption to present to the judge, which apparently included the party that wanted to adopt the chicken. According to the officers, several abandoned or lost chickens are seized every year.

 I asked why they were here to present a petition for a chicken. They essentially said that as animal control officers, they are required by law to do so. They told me the name of the chicken, a rooster, was “Speckles.” We were able to obtain a photo of Speckles, and as you can see, he was aptly named because of his coloring.

I stayed to witness the hearing which was handled in a straightforward legal manner. The animal control officer presented the petition to the judge, she reviewed it and then granted custody to whoever wanted the chicken. The acoustics in the court room were poor, and I couldn’t hear all the details. The case was sandwiched between two more serious cases, and took about five minutes to complete.

Trying to find out more about why the county had to spend the time, money and effort including requiring the time of animal control officers to adopt a chicken, I contacted the Community Relations Manager of the Department of Animal Services, Talia Czapski. She responded to my question in an email as follows;

“Unlike a cat or dog that we might find running at large and take in as a stray animals, there is no stray process for livestock. Instead, if we find … a stray livestock animal, we technically seize them rather than bring them in as stray. This means that we need to go through the seizure process (involving court) for that animal before we can adopt them out. This is true for all livestock so roosters, chickens, cows, goats, horses etc. would all follow this process. When we bring livestock into our care this way, we hold them until their court date, and try to find their owners in the meantime.” 

So there you have it, everybody was doing their job. They were following the law as written. That’s how the county ended up putting a notice in a local paper for a seizure of a chicken, a rooster named Speckles. They had to do it. In their zeal to make sure that no animal is mistreated, our lawmakers cast a wide net because the code statute 3.2-6569 includes all animals.

The real problem with this whole process is that it diverts resources from the real cases of major animal abuse like the recent situation in Aldie where a woman was charged with 118 instances of animal abuse by hoarding 367 animals. According to published reports, there were an alleged 51 class 1 and 64 class 4 misdemeanors at her place of residence. If convicted, she could be put in jail for 51 years or pay $127,500 just for the Class 1 misdemeanors alone. 

Now, that’s a case worthy of a hearing, not the finding of a home for a rooster. The bottom line is the Code of Virginia has to be changed to allow for the local disposition of a lost or abandoned animal. 

My experience with the people of the Loudoun County Department of Animal Services is that they are kind and caring animal lovers, that are sometimes faced with horrendous animal abuse situations. Free them up to do the important things, so Loudoun County doesn’t have to hold a hearing for a chicken.