Wheat Ridge council discusses animal code changes; agrees limits for roosters, bans swine and clarifies several rules

Wheat Ridge City Council members spent much of the study session reviewing a comprehensive set of proposed changes to Chapter 4 of the municipal code that covers animals, and they reached several consensuses after extended public comment focused on a single nuisance rooster in a Moore Court neighborhood.

The city received repeated public testimony both for and against permitting roosters in residential neighborhoods. Dozens of residents described a specific rooster they said crowed repeatedly and disrupted residents’ sleep and outdoor life; residents provided recordings and counts they said documented crowing 5 times in five minutes and estimated up to 30–35 crowing events per hour in some cases. Other residents, and several backyard-farming advocates, warned that banning roosters would undermine Wheat Ridge’s urban-farming heritage and that hens sometimes crow as well.

Staff summarized a range of proposed changes to the animal code, including allowing reptiles/amphibians with targeted prohibitions for venomous or hazardous species; clarifying endangered-species rules to allow possession by licensed entities (for example, licensed rehabilitators or research institutions); consolidating overlapping definitions for “aggressive,” “dangerous,” and “vicious” animals into simpler categories; and updating processes for notice and enforcement.

The council took the following actions by consensus during the study session: - Reptiles, amphibians and insects: staff’s recommended risk-based allowance was accepted (prohibit venomous or hazardous species and state/federal-listed dangerous species), and staff will reflect the council’s requested clarifications in a consolidated code update. - Endangered species: allow possession by licensed entities (research institutions or licensed rehabilitators) subject to verification of licensing. - Definitions: consolidate existing definitions so the code treats behavior equivalently across species (an “aggressive animal” category for minor incidents and a “dangerous animal” category for serious injury or fighting-trained animals). - Rehabilitated fighting animals: council declined to add a special exemption for formerly fighting animals, citing risk, shelter expertise and liability concerns; staff and Foothills Animal Shelter recommended shelters manage rehabilitated fighting animals, and council endorsed that approach. - Transfer of dangerous animals: council expanded the transfer option to allow “responsible caretakers” approved by the city (community service officers to verify), and council removed an automatic-family-only transfer right; the mayor and council asked city staff to verify prospective caretakers’ histories before approvals. - Childproof structures and containment: council accepted updated language requiring outdoor enclosures for dangerous animals to be designed to prevent accidental entry by anyone, including children; staff will provide additional guidance on acceptable enclosures. - Swine: council agreed to amend the code to prohibit keeping swine as a domestic animal citywide; staff will determine whether any existing animals must be grandfathered or otherwise addressed. - Roosters: after hearing extensive public comment, staff recommended allowing up to one rooster per property in residential areas and up to three on properties of at least one acre. Council modified and clarified that approach and reached consensus to allow up to one rooster per property in residential areas; properties of one acre or larger may keep up to three roosters. Council asked staff to treat agriculturally zoned properties under one-acre thresholds as residential for this rule.

On enforcement, staff described the city’s current process for nuisance animal complaints: community service officers (CSOs) investigate complaints (asking for audio/video evidence when available), attempt voluntary compliance, provide a two‑week cure period, and if unresolved issue a summons to municipal court. Staff said common nuisance triggers include “continuous crowing for more than 20 minutes” or repeated crowing every few minutes for an extended period; the CSO standard is a reasonableness test combined with observed frequency and effect on neighbors.

Council also asked staff to return with more detail on administrative enforcement options (an administrative hearing/officer alternative to municipal-court prosecution) to speed resolution of persistent noise or nuisance cases.

City staff and Foothills Animal Shelter representatives told council they had not seen a population-level problem involving rehabilitated fighting dogs in Wheat Ridge and recommended that shelters, which have behavior-management capacity, remain the primary venue to handle those animals rather than a new city exemption.

Council directed staff to incorporate the council’s guidance into a consolidated Chapter 4 ordinance draft for review at a later meeting. No ordinance was introduced or adopted at this session; council used consensus direction to shape the final draft.