Merrimack council advances proposed rooster ban to public hearing after heated public comments

The Merrimack Town Council voted unanimously Nov. 13 to send a proposed stock-and-fowl noise ordinance to public hearing after a night of extensive public comment about roosters in residential neighborhoods.

The ordinance, drafted by a councilor, would allow backyard hens for personal use while prohibiting adult male roosters or "crowing chickens" on lots under an acreage threshold and setting standards for coops, runs, manure storage and nuisance enforcement. Council members amended the draft during debate to set the acreage cutoff at 1.5 acres and instructed staff to develop explicit grandfathering language for existing roosters.

The issue drew a stream of residents to the microphone. Wendy Thomas, who identified herself as a Merrimack resident and longtime backyard-flock owner, urged a ban on roosters in residential areas, saying roosters are “very, very loud” and can crow at night in wooded yards. “Roosters are so undesirable…they are very, very loud,” Thomas said, arguing the animals function as predators-detectors but become nuisances in close neighborhoods.

Opposition came from longtime residents who said roosters serve a protective role and that communication between neighbors should be tried before regulation. Dave Bauer (97 Wilson Hill Road) said his rooster has protected his flock from predators and urged that neighbors be given the chance to resolve disputes without new enforcement burdens. “I talk to my neighbors. We try to come up with a reasonable solution,” Bauer said.

Other commenters gave mixed views: Tim Wiegand (8 Short Street) told the council his neighbors rooster crows “hundreds and hundreds of times a day” and said the disruption of sleep and remote work justified regulation. Sherry Hastings Lucy and Jean Malwin urged the council to respect Merrimacks agricultural character and avoid heavy-handed enforcement such as mandatory registration or confiscation.

Council discussion focused on practical enforcement, the proper acreage threshold for allowing roosters, and protections for existing owners. Councilors questioned whether animal-control or health staff could reliably distinguish a rooster from a crowing hen and whether people who have owned roosters for years should be grandfathered. The draft as amended requires coops and runs to meet basic sanitary standards, restricts structures closer than 20 feet to property lines and imposes escalating fines for repeat violations.

A motion by Tom, seconded by Jennifer, carried by voice vote 7-0 to move the ordinance to a public hearing; the council directed staff to post the revised draft and prepare maps showing residential zone distinctions for the hearing.

What happens next: The draft moves to public hearing and remains subject to amendments after resident testimony and council consideration. If the ordinance completes the three-reading process, a final council vote would be required to adopt it.